##PAGE1##

1 OA No. 858/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, CAMP AT NAGPUR

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 858/2025 Dated this Tuesday the 24^th March, 2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SHRI KRISHNA, MEMBER (A)

Madhavi Ramdas Malvi, Aged:21 years, Occupation: Nil, residing at Quarter

No.E1/1, Kanhan Railway Station Road, near Kanhan Railway Station, Railway

Colony, Kanhan, VTC: Salva, Kanhan Pimpri, 441401 District: Nagpur,

Maharashtra.

Mobile No. -7768995943. ...Applicant (By Advocate Shri Rahul Dhande)

–

Versus

1. The Union of India through its Divisional Railway Manager having office at South

East Central Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Department, Kingsway,

Nagpur: 440001.

2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Divisional Rashmi DDpe5bb3RLDF o440d1 o o iN e a g s387f8 c x a t :i e t a i e21 9 t s t a 0 aC : t bf4 5o P l i a 8 l C o2 = 0 9 bn y 3 2 D n0 I e 7 0 o : N c 2 s :2F 1 4 3 d I 1 7 i , 6 e 0 a g e a 2 R 6 C . 7 9 1 n = m 0 9 0 e 1 a 1 Ne 1 4 a 7 a d 4 e d 1 t . = 1 d h d1 4 5 5 0R d e b e e5 e 2 f 0 4 03 ya r 8 7 8 a 1 f 7f s V 4 R 8 c 2 u 1 c, h 02 b e , t a : ct m h 5 40 0 i r p s 8t s o 5 f, l e is h ae 6 , i r : t o ae m = 2 7 1e O o n 7u 1 3 0 0l i f e = : 1d f + 7 3 t p8 P 2 8o h7 0 5h7 0 0ne i9 5 5 s o7 2 9yr ' a 3 s n3 m 5 6 d 9 o 0 e3 . 9 o 8 = 3 n ' Ne 4 c c . a 1 0 u b ue l 2 m 4 , mb 5 a S 9 e b2 7 T 5 n e4 ,8 = t r9 s =2 D 2 ea e d rci l 4 a h e 3 l i 2N , d cu b 3m c 3 a b4 e e9 4 r9= 3 O K f i f n i g c s e w , a y P , e r N s a o g n p n u e r l : D 4 e 4 p 0 a 0 r 0 t 1 m . e nt, 3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, South

2 OA No. 858/2025

East Central Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Department,

Kingsway, Nagpur: 440001.

4. Sunita Malvi Aged: 53 years, Occupation: House Hold, residing at

House of Sishila Mohbe, Shriram Colony, Ward No.37, Chandgoan,

Chhindwara, P.S. Tahsil and District:

Chindwara, Madhya Pradesh ...Respondents (By Advocate- Shri N P Lambat)

ORAL ORDER

This is the second round of litigation.

The applicant is the daughter of second wife of

the deceased employee.

2. She has earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 558 of 2023 which was decided by this Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2025, wherein after considering the relevant rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. V.R. Tripathi (2019) AIR (SC) 666 and in the case of Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported

Rashmi DDpe5bb3RLDF o440d1 o o iN e a g s387f8 c x a t :i e t a i e21 9 t s t a 0 aC : t bf4 5o P l i a 8 l C o2 = 0 9 bn y 3 2 D n0 I e 7 0 o : N c 2 s :2F 1 4 3 d I 1 7 i , 6 e 0 a g e a 2 R 6 C . 7 9 1 n = m 0 9 0 e 1 a 1 Ne 1 4 a 7 a d 4 e d 1 t . = 1 d h d1 4 5 5 0R d e b e e5 e 2 f 0 4 03 ya r 8 7 8 a 1 f 7f s V 4 R 8 c 2 u 1 c, h 02 b e , t a : ct m h 5 40 0 i r p s 8t s o 5 f, l e is h ae 6 , i r : t o ae m = 2 7 1e O o n 7u 1 3 0 0l i f e = : 1d f + 7 3 t p8 P 2 8o h7 0 5h7 0 0ne i9 5 5 s o7 2 9yr ' a 3 s n3 m 5 6 d 9 o 0 e3 . 9 o 8 = 3 n ' Ne 4 c c . a 1 0 u b ue l 2 m 4 , mb 5 a S 9 e b2 7 T 5 n e4 ,8 = t r9 s =2 D 2 ea e d rci l 4 a h e 3 l i 2N , d cu b 3m c 3 a b4 e e9 4 r9= 3 in 2022 (3) Bom. C.R. 678 following order was

passed:

3 OA No. 858/2025

“12. Thus, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.R. Tripathi and in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), the impugned condition i.e. a child born to the second wife can be considered for such appointment only after ascertaining that there is no objection to this from the first wife or her children and where the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the second wife for any of her children, held to be discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and conditions contained in RBE No.218/2019 (ER No.361/2019) (Annex-A-5)