IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 2622 of 2008 Between: Smt. N. Rajamma, W/o. Late Bikshapathi, Yellamala (V), Jangam Mandalam, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, Rep. by its The General Manager, 3rd Floor, Railnilayam, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 2 The Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of mandamus are any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the order passed in OA 251/2007 dated 21-11-2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench of Hyderabad as illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set a side the same along with the impugned order No. YP/Con/268/B/R/2003 dated 11-12-2006 of R2 and further direct the respondents to consider the compassionate ground appointment of window son N. Venkatesham in term of Railway Bd letter No. E(Ng)III/78/RC1/1 dated 30-4-1979 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.SANYASI RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the order, dated 21.11.2007 passed in O.A. No. 251 of 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same along with the proceedings No.YP/Con/268/B/R/2003 dated 11.12.2006 issued by the second respondent and to consider the appointment of her son on compassionate grounds, in terms of the Railway Board Letter No.E(Eg)III/78/RC1/1 dated 30.4.1979 the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner herein filed the above OA assailing rejection of the petitioner’s request to appoint her son on compassionate grounds. The husband of the petitioner herein died on 24.10.2002 while working in Railways, as Khalasi. The petitioner herein submitted representation, dated 30.10.2002 to the second respondent seeking compassionate appointment to her son, but she was advised to renew her request after her son attains majority. Accordingly, the petitioner herein submitted another representation on 5.5.2006, which was negatived by the second respondent for the reason that the petitioner was second wife of deceased employee and, therefore, employment to her son, being son of the second wife cannot be considered. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the above O.A. inter alia contending that the first wife Smt. Varjamma, has entered into compromise with the petitioner before the Lok Adalath to that effect that she has no objection to the petitioner’s son getting compassionate appointment and, therefore, the decree is binding on the Railways. The case of the respondent – Railways is that the decree of the Lok Adalath is not binding inasmuch as Railways was not a party to the said decree. It is also their case that the appointment of the petitioner’s son would amount to sanctifying plurality of marriage. The Tribunal adverting to the Serial Circular No.5/92 dated 21.2.1992, issued by the Railway Board, dismissed the O.A. The said Circular reads that in a case of Railway employee dying in harness, etc., leaving more than one widow along with children born to the 2nd wife, while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to court orders or otherwise on merits of each case, appointment on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law, etc. It further reads that the same may be kept in view and the cases for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be forwarded to Railway Board. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein is the second wife of the deceased Railway Employee. The decree passed by Lok Adalath is also admitted by the parties, but it is contended by the respondents that the said decree is not binding, inasmuch as the Railway Administration was not made a party to it. The fact that there was a settlement between the first and second wife is the subject matter of the decree passed by the Lok Adalath. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. mainly on the ground of the Serial Circular No.5/92 wherein, the Railway Board has directed the administration that the case for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be forwarded to the Railway Board. It is nobody’s case that the deceased employee had obtained permission for second marriage, which alone is the except for the petitioner or her son to be considered for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal after elaborate analysis of the events, in our considered view, has rightly dismissed the O.A. Having gone through the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is left open to the petitioner to avail the remedies open to her. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 5, 2008 MAS.