Surviving second wife has priority for compassionate appointment over son when first wife predeceased, per Railway circular.

ORDER

This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on 07.12.2022 against the order dated 24.11.2022 by which the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The applicant claimed the following relief(s) in Para-8 of the OA:-

“8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass the direction commanding the Respondent No. 3 (Workshop Officer (Personnel), Mechanical Workshop North Eastern Railway at Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur), to set aside the impugned letter dated 24-11-2022 and stay the impression thereof.

8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously further also be pleased to pass the direction commanding the Respondent No. 2 (Chief Workshop Manager (Personnel), North Eastern Railway, Mechanical Workshop at Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur) to provide the compassionate appointment in favour of applicant in light of the circular dated 30-12-2019.

8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.4 To award the cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”

2. As per the applicant’s case, he is the son of deceased employee Dines Kumar, who was posted as ‘Khalasi’ and expired during his service time on 02.06.2021. After the death of the father, the applicant submitted the application for the compassionate appointment, but the respondents did not grant the aforesaid appointment, therefore he filed OA No.767/202 in which direction was given by the Tribunal to decide his representation. By the impugned order, the respondents decided the aforesaid representation and dismissed the claim of the applicant with the indication that the department is going to grant the compassionate appointment to the wife of the deceased employee. Therefore, the applicant filed this OA.

3. The respondents opposed the claim of the applicant by filing the counter affidavit on 06.04.2023. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant is the son of the first wife of the deceased employee while Shanti Kumari, respondent No.4 is the second wife of the deceased employee. The marriage was solemnized before entering in the service. The deceased employee also declared Shanti Kumari as his wife at the time of joining the service. Therefore the compassionate appointment has been granted to Shanti Kumari, respondent No.4. It is also submitted by the respondents that the applicant changed his date of birth as 01.01.2002, while as per the official records, the deceased employee mentioned the date of birth of the applicant as 10.05.2007. The Adhar Card of the applicant was also issued in which the date of birth 10.05.2007 was mentioned. But thereafter the applicant manipulated his date of birth and declared his date of birth as 01.01.2002 in his High School certificate and also got the new Adhar Card. Therefore, the date of birth is also suspicious and the applicant was not entitled to get the compassionate appointment in the lifetime of his stepmother who was the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

4. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the applicant’s counsel that the department did not comply with the order dated 30.12.2019 issued by the Ministry of Railway (Railway Board). A copy of the aforesaid order has been filed as Annexure A-4 along with the Hindi Version of the aforesaid order.

5. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the aforesaid circular is not applicable in the case of the applicant because the mother of the applicant was e