Reserved on 21.11.2025 Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 26 th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 316 of 2025 Rashika Kumari, Aged about 30 years, Wife of Late Vivek Dubey, Present Address: Jatpura Sambhal Road, Near Gandhi Ashram, Post – Fatehpur Khas, Tehsil – Bilari, District – Moradabad – 244411.

……….. APPLICANT By Advocate: Shri Satya Prakash Pandey and Shri Raj Kishore Pandey Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad.

3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad.

4. Assistant Personal Officer, Northern Railway, Moradabad.

.………RESPONDENTS By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra ORDER Shri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

“(i) Issue a suitable order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure No. 1 to this Compilation – I) passed by respondent No 4.

(ii) Issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to provide suitable job to the applicant on compassionate ground in place of her late husband in the Indian Railways under the extant Scheme of Compassionate Appointment of Indian Railways.

(iii) Issue any suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award cost of this application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 04.02.2025 by way of which her plea for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents. Applicant has alleged that the aforesaid order has been passed on unreasonable and false grounds and reasons recorded in it are also not genuine and thus sought the quashing of the same with a direction to the respondents to appoint her on compassionate grounds.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was working as Senior Train Numbering Clerk (TNC) in Northern Railway Moradabad and died in harness on 20.05.2022. At the time of husband’s entry in the employment, he was married. Subsequently, the applicant got married to the applicant on 01.12.2020. But unfortunately, within two years, the applicant passed away. Thereafter, the father in law of the applicant also passed away. The mother in law of the applicant was already dead prior to applicant’s marriage and at present the applicant is only surviving legal heir of Late Vivek Dubey (husband) and late Devendra Kumar Dubey (father in law). Being sole surviving legal heir, the applicant had applied for succession regarding property of late Vivek Dubey. She applied for succession certificate in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC Moradabad and succession certificate was issued on 18.04.2023 in Succession Case No. 300 of

2022. The applicant being fully qualified and eligible for job in the Indian Railways, applied for the same under Dying in harness rule on 07.06.2022 upon which the letter dated 18.01.2024 was issued by the respondent no 2 for interview. The applicant appeared for interview but since then the matter was being lingered on the pretext of unreasonable and illegal questions regarding the veracity of the marriage of the applicant. Seeking redressal of her grievance, the applicant approached before the Tribunal in OA No 1346 of 2024 which was disposed of on 19.11.2024 and respondents were directed to decide the representation of the applicant in accordance with law. In compliance, the respondents decided the representation of the applicant and rejected her ca