Reserved on 01.12.2025 Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 03 rd day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 500 of 2024 Rani Devi W/O Late Binod Ram R/o Chandapur Post Udaypur, Cholapur District Varanasi.

……….. APPLICANT By Advocate: Shri Birendra Kumar and Shri Neeraj Srivastava Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railway New Delhi.

2. General Manager Zonal, Dhanbad Division Dhanbad.

3. Assistant Personal Officer E.C. Railway Dhanbad.

4. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.

5. Smt. Mahima Arya W/O Late Rajan Kumar R/O Chandapur Post Udaypur, Cholapur District Varanasi. Presently residing Mahda, Singhpur, Cholapur District Varanasi.

.………RESPONDENTS By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai and Shri S K Prajapati.

ORDER Shri Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai and Shri S K Prajapati, 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) To set aside / quash the order dated 12/04/2024 passed by respondent No. 04.

(ii) Issue a direction to respondent authority to provide appointment on the compassionate ground to the son of applicant namely Rahul Kumar.

(iii) Pass such further or other order as Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter.

3. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the respondent no 4 through which the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment of her younger son Shri Rahul Kumar has been rejected. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA is that the applicant’s husband namely Binod Ram was working as Loco Pilot in the respondents department and he died on 12.01.2021 after which the applicant gave an affidavit that her elder son namely Rajan Kumar be given compassionate appointment. Appointment was given to Rajan Kumar but he too died while he was under training. Subsequently, the applicant preferred an application to grant compassionate appointment to her daughter in law namely Mahima Arya on the basis of undertaking given by Mahima Arya that she will take care of the applicant. But later the applicant has sought compassionate appointment to her son namely Rahul Kumar instead of her daughter in law on the apprehension that she will not look after her. But this plea of the applicant has been rejected by the respondents and thus the applicant has preferred this OA seeking quashing of the impugned order and direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment in favour of her son namely Rahul Kumar instead of her daughter in law.

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

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s husband namely Late Binod Ram was working as Loco Pilot in the respondents’ department and died on 12.01.2021 while in service leaving behind his wife (the applicant), two sons and one unmarried daughter. Thus, the applicant preferred an application seeking appointment of her elder son namely Rajan Kumar on compassionate grounds. Considering her application, the respondent no 3 gave compassionate appointment to Rajan Kumar vide letter dated 25.01.2022 and he was inducted into training. Unfortunately, Rajan Kumar died on 18.03.2023 while he was under training. It was argued that as per Railway Board’s letter dated 04.06.2019 (RBE No 90/2019), the applicant moved an application dated 15.07.2023 for giving appointment to her daughter in law namely Mahima Arya wife of Late Rajan Kumar along with declaration that her daughter in law will take care of the applicant. It was further argued that subsequently the behavior of daughter in law towards the applicant got changed and she started ignoring the applicant. Hence, due to the aforesaid reason, the applican