^ BEFORE, THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, ( C.G.) PETITIONERS.: ..* s^ - ^ /^^/ 'y ^y' <;^>/- \f' 2).. W.P!N0.35^S/05.< UNION OF INDIA, South East Central Rly. Through, The General Manager, S.E. C.Rly., BILASPUR. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer , S.E.C. Rly. ,Bilaspur.( now, Raipur). VERSUS RESPONDENTS Rahul Kumar Meshram S/0, Late Sunandan Meshram, Aged about 30 Years, R/0, Behind R.P.F. Office, Near Mal Godam, RAIPUR. PETITION UNDER ART. 226/ 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/ OR ANY QTHER APPROPMATE DIRECTION/ DIRECTIONS, ORDER/ ORDERS ETC. HIGM COURT OF CHMATTISGARH s BILA8PUR Divlsion Bench Coram: Hon'bte ShriH.L Dattu, CJ & Hon'bte Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRIT PETITION N0.3328 OF 2008 PETITIONERS Versus RgSPQNDENT Union of India, South Ea®t Central Railway and another. Rahul Kumar Meshram Present: ^v Shri Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Shri Suryakant Mlslwa, counsel for the petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for the respondent. V ORAL ORDER (Passed on23rd February, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.LDattu.CJ. This is a case of a request and rejecBon for appointonent on compassionate grounds. Respondent before us is the son of secwid wife of the deceased Late Sunandan Meshram, who was an emptoyee in South East Central Railways, Bilaspur. He died in hamess. The respondent made a claim before the petitionere for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said daim has been rejected by the petitionere. It is, therefore, he had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabatpur Bench, by filing an application O.A.No.526/2004. The Tribunal relying on the clreular issued by the ^ - ^- "\ Raihivay Board ("Vhe Board" for short) had atlowed the respondent's application and has issued certain directions to the petitionecs. The orderpassed by the Tribunal is as under: 'We have perused Annexure R/1 dated 20.1.92 in whteh tt is mentioned that ".the appoinbnents on compa^ionate grounds to tiie second widow and her children are not to be considered unless ttie administrsrtion has permltted ttie second marriage, in special cireumstances, talang intso account the personal law ete." According to aforesaid law the second wife may not be ontitled for compassionate appointment but the applicant being son of the deces^ed Govt. servant is entitted. We have perused the impugned orders dated 2.8.95 and 9.1 .2003. It is macte clear that the second wife Smt. Malti Meshram is not entNled for compassionate appointment in favour of herself, but the present applicant is legally enUtled to claim for compassionate appointment and his daim cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he is son ofthe second wife of the deceased Govt. servant. The respondents should have considered the facts and circumstances regarding the contentions of the applicant which they have not considered in passing the impugned orders. Hence, the impugned orders dated 2.8.95 and 9.1.2003 are quashed and set aside." 2) The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid orcter passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, are before us in ttiis wrtt pstition. 3) Admitted facts are: The respondent in this writ petitton is tiie son of ttie second wife of the deceased Late Sunandan Meshram. He was an emplo^e of South East Central Railway, Bilaspur. While in service, heexpired. His claim for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected by the Railway authorities, keeping in view the circular/instructions issued by the Board dated 20/01/1992. The circular dated 20/01/1992 (Annexure P/4) reads as below: ^G — 3>' "NoP/Comp/Poly/tV dated20.1.92. A copy of Raihway Board's tetter No.E.(NG)tt/91/RC- 1/136 dated 2.1.1992 (R.B.E.No.1 of 1992) is pubUshed for information and gujdance. Copy of Board's tetter No.E(NG)11/91/RC-1/136 dated 2.1.1992 addressed tothe General Managers (P), All Zwiat Railways and others. Appointment on compassionate grounds - cases of second wife and herwards. It is clarified that in the case of railvwiy employew dying in harness ete. leaving more than one widow atong with Children born to the 2"dwife, whjte setttement dues may be shared by both the wldows due to Court ordersor otherwise on merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the admjnisfration has permttled the second marriage, in special cireumstances, taking into accountthe personal law ete. 2. The fact that the second marriage is not permissibte is invariably clarified in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of inrtial appointment. 3. This may be kept in view and ttie cases for compassionate appointment to the second wictow or her wards need not be forwarded to Raihway Board" 4) In facl, relying on the aforesaid cireular, a direction is i^ued by the Board. Therefore, the circular requires to be re-read by us. The purport of ttie circular in our view is, a railway employee dying in hamess leaving more than one widow along with children born to the second wife, while settlement of dues requires to be shared by both the widovw either due to the Court orders or otherarise on ffierits of each case. Insofar as the appointments on compassionate ground to the second widow and her children is not to be considered unless the administration haspennitted the second marriage. 5) The circular issued by the Board is bindir^ on the authorities. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent that th®railway authorities had permitted the second marris®e of late Sunandan ^ Meshram. tt is only when ttie second roarriage is permitted, then onfy the second widow and her children are entltleGl to elaim appolertment on compassionate grounds. 6) Learned counsel appearing forthe petttioners would subniit that the Tribunal has misunderstood and mislnterpreted th®circular issued by ttie Board and, ttierefore, the impugned order requires to be interfered with. 7) Per contra, tearned counsel appearing for the respondent woutd submit that the Tribunal is justified in issuing dlrectlon to th®Rsrfhivay Authorities to consider the case of the respondent, who is son of the second wife of the deceased employee. In aid of his submission, the leamed counsel reties upon the observations macte bythe Apex Court in the cases ofSmt. Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalllant Amma and others vs. K. Deviand others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1963) and Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and others reported inAlR 2000 SC 735. 8) At the outset, none of the case laws on whteh rellance is pl8®ed by the respondent would assist him in the present case. tn fE^t, ttie facts and circumstances of those cases are nowtere nearer to or identical to the facte and circumstances of the present case. 9) The Tribunal after going through the ciroular passed by tho Board dated 20-1-1992, in our view, could not have dtrected ttie Railway Authorities to consider the case of the respondent herein for appointment on compassionate ground, since the deceased employee had not taken prior permisslon of the Railway authorifies to contract the second marriage. -s- ^ 10) In that view of the matter, the condusion reached by the Tribunal is contrary to the purport and object of the circularAnstructions issued by the Board dated 20-1-1992. Therefore, we cannot svstain the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it requires to be set aside by us. In the result, the following: Order 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The order passed by the Tribunal dsted 8-4-2005 in O.A.No.52&r2004issetaside. ^. 3. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge