CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this 11^th of June, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Sankareshwaran M., S/o late K. Maduraiveeran, 41/6, Mannaikottai Road, Sattur, Virudunagar District. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s Ratio Legis Vs.

1.Union of India rep by Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.

2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Divisional Office, Madurai District. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. A. Abdul Ajees

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Challenging the Show Cause Notice, dated 28.04.2016, providing of false information for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the applicant has filed the OA.

2. Brief Facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The applicant’s father, Late Maduraiveeran, was a Key-man in Southern Railways and died on 30.06.2010, leaving behind his wife Muthukrishnammal and sons M. Sankareshwara (the applicant), M. Nageshwaran, and Harikrishnan as legal heirs. After the applicant reached adulthood, his mother requested a compassionate appointment for him on 01.09.2015. The applicant, having completed a Diploma in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, submitted all necessary certificates and was appointed as a Group D helper in the Electrical Department on a pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a grade pay of Rs. 1800. He began working accordingly. However, on 28.04.2016, the 2nd respondent issued a notice stating that an enquiry revealed that the applicant was born to one Sahayaselvi and that the second marriage was not disclosed, based on Adhaar Card information. This notice was challenged as it contradicted the Civil Court Decree in OS No.77/2014, DMC Sathur, which declared the applicant, his brothers, and his mother Muthukrishnammal as the legal heirs of Maduraiveeran. The applicant has filed the present OA to challenge the proceedings dated 28.04.2016.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that after the death of the applicant's father, Maduraiveeran, in 2010, the applicant, his mother, and his brothers applied for a legal heirship certificate. They were instructed by the Tahsildar to get a declaration from the Civil Court. Consequently, they filed a suit (OS No.77/2014) in the DMC, Sattur, and the Court declared them as legal heirs after a contest with the Tahsildar. The Trial Court considered various documents including Maduraiveeran's ID card, the applicant's transfer certificate, a judgment in another case (MCOP No.57/2011), pension records, and the ration card. Additionally, the applicant and his family had received compensation as legal heirs in the judgment of MCOP No.57/2011. The applicant's birth certificate confirmed his parents' names as Maduraiveeran and Muthukrishnammal.

4. The counsel contended that despite these documents, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice in 2016, citing conflicting Aadhar details that listed Sahayaselvi as the second wife of Maduraiveeran and disputing the applicant's entitlement to compassionate appointment based on service rules. He argued that the Deputy Tahsildar, Sattur, was competent to issue the birth certificate and that administrative authorities should not overlook the Civil Court's decree. Thus, he sought relief for the applicant in the present case.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that after MaduraiVeeran's death on 30.08.2010, his wife, Smt. M. Muthukrishnammal, sought a compassionate appointment for the applicant on 01.09.2014. A discreet enquiry by the Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector, reported on 14.01.2015, revealed that the applicant and two other children were born to M. Sahayaselvi, not M. Muthukrishnammal. The deceased employee had not informed the Railway Administration about his second marriage. A Ration Card corroborated this finding. Consequently, the Railway Administration asked Muthukrishnammal on 12.02.2015 to provide the applicant's Birth Certificate and Leg