CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00366/2024 Dated, this 24th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Luv Sirothiya, aged about 25 years, son of Late Vinod Kumar Sirothiya, resident of C-1423/5, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

….. Applicant By Advocate: Shri S.K. Dubey for Mayankar Singh VERSUS

1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.

2. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Central Railways, Jhansi.

3. Smt. Lajja Devi, aged about 59 years, daughter of Sri Brij Lal, resident of Biharipura, Nagra, Jhansi, resident of 132/6 B School, Pura Prem Nagar, Jhansi.

…...Respondents By Advocate: Shri D.K. Mishra

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to compassionate appointment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 08.05.2024, passed by the opposite party no.2, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to this original application.

(ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party No.2 to provide suitable appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, to the applicant.

(iii) Any other relief deemed just and proper of the case may be allowed in favour of applicant.

(iv) Allow the cost of the case in favour of the applicant against the opposite parties.”

2. The applicant’s father Vinod Kumar, who was working as Deputy Station Superintendent under the respondents, died in harness on 29.03.2013. The applicant is the son of the deceased employee from his second wife, Hani Sirothiya. The first legally wedded wife, Lajja Devi, who does not have any child, as well as the second wife, Hani Sirothiya, filed separate applications for obtaining the succession certificate which were clubbed together and decided vide order dated 10.11.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi entitling the first wife, Lajja Devi, as well as the two sons, Luv (applicant) and Kush, from the second marriage, to one-third share each of the service benefits payable to the family of deceased employee. The respondents rejected the applicant’s case for appointment on compassionate ground vide their order dated 01.03.2018 which was set aside by this Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 01.02.2024 in OA No. 337 of 2018 with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case. The respondents rejected the applicant’s case vide their order dated 08.05.2024 on the ground that as the first wife, Lajja Devi, of the deceased employee did not agree to consideration of applicant’s appointment on compassionate ground, it was not possible to consider his case in terms of RBE No. 218/2019 dated 30.12.2019. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that while the first wife, Lajja Devi, has been granted family pension, there is no source of sustenance of his mother (the second wife) and her children and that it is settled law that son from the second wife has equal right as the son of the first wife and, therefore, he is legally entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

4.1 Per contra, the respondents no. 1 and 2 state that the deceased employee had two wives, Lajja Devi (with no child) and Honey Sirothiya (with two children). In the declaration suit no. 101/2013, the Civil Court, Jhansi held Lajja Devi as the legal wife of the deceased employee and ordered distribution of dues between Lajja Devi, Luv Sirothiya (applicant) and Kush Sirothiya in three equal parts. It is contended that in terms of RBE No. 218/2019 dated 30.12.2019, children of the second wife can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground only if the first wife or her children have no objection, but Lajja Devi has objected to consideration of the applicant’s case and stated that she, herself, shall apply for appointment on compassionate ground.

4.2 Respondent no. 3 contends that the Civil Court