Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member
Tejaswani Gautam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of compassionate appointment claim (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10) |
| 2. parties' contentions on dependency and eligibility (Para 6 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. railway board rules on married/divorced daughters (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. compassionate appointment requires immediate dependency (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. claim rejected due to lack of dependency at death (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
Order
Heard Shri Krishna Kumar Mishra and Shri Sudhir Kumar Shukla, counsels for the applicant and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -
“A- Issue a order or directing the set aside impugned order dated 8.07.2020 passed and communicated by the Respondent no. 2 and 3 rejecting the applicant claim of compassionate appointment.
B- Issue any order or direction as deem fit and under the circumstances of the applicant's case.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father late Ganga Prasad was posted in the office Respondent No.3 as a MCM (Fitter) who died on 23.06.2013 in his service period, his retirement date was 30.06.2013. Applicant was living with
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
