CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA No. O.A. 350/00377/2022 Heard on: 11.02.2026 Date of Order: 10.03.2026 Present: Hon'ble Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member

1. Tanmay Kumar Mandal, Son of Late Anil Kumar Mandal, Aged about 28 years, Residing at Vill. - Mahananda Palley, Utpal Sengupta Sarani, P.O.- Jhaljhalia (Jhaljhalia), Dist. Malda, Pin-732102.

…….Applicant Versus –

1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata – 700 001.

2. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda, PO + PS – Malda, District – Malda – 732102.

…. Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel Ms. P. Mondal, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. R. Halder, Counsel O R D E R Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

“a) Order E/Confdl./P.Br./RPF/CA/MLDT cannot be sustained in the eye of law and same may be quashed.

b) An Order do issue directing the respondents to grant appointment in favour of the applicant on compassionate ground since RBE

1/92 was quashed by the Hon’ble Court.”

2. The father of the applicant was working as Constable/RBE/BHW but unfortunately he expired on 26.01.2004 while in service. The applicant is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee while his first wife is still alive. After death of the father of the applicant, Ms. Urmila Mondal, first wife of the deceased, was asked to produce succession certificate in order to process the case for payment of settlement dues and thereafter Succession Certificate was granted in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased employee on 05.04.2018, including the applicant. Subsequently, the authority concerned released pensionary benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased employee upon receipt of the Succession Certificate. According to the applicant, RBE No. 1/92 provides that in case of Railway employee who dies in harness, leaving more than one widow along with children born to the second wife, settlement dues can be shared among both the widows due to Court’s Order or otherwise on merit of the such case but appointment on compassionate ground is not considered for second wife and her children but the administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law. The applicant, being the son of the second wife, after receipt of the settlement dues, made a representation praying that since his father was working as RPF Constable and had died in harness and he being a Graduate and as the entire family is in an indigent condition, he sought for a compassionate appointment. The representation was rejected by the Respondent No. 02 vide Order dated 17.12.2021 on two ground, firstly that the representation was filed after a period of 17 years and according to RBE No. 01/1992, he is not entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground as he is the son of the second wife. The applicant fairly admits that if the Rule does not permit grant of appointment on compassionate ground, the authority concerned are restrained from granting him appointment but the representation cannot be rejected on the ground of belated submission.

According to the applicant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. UOI & ors. in a judgment passed in SLP (C) No. 18571 of 2018 has held that the condition imposed by the Railway Board’s Circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee is not sustainable, since it is discriminatory and violates the provisions contained under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India referring to the case of Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi decided in (2019) 14 SCC 646. It was further held that child born of a second wife of an employee could not be denied compassionate appointment on that ground also. The exclusion of the class of l