THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 30393 of 2011 Dated 28-11-2011 Between: Smt. B. Vijayalakshmi …Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, East Coast Railways, Bubaneswar and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No. 30393 of 2011 Dated: 28-11-2011 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) Heard Sri B. Gajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pushpender Kour, learned standing counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 22-02-2011 rejecting O.A.No. 173 of 2010. The unsuccessful applicant is before us. The applicant is the ﬁrst wife, now the widow of late B. Appa Rao, who died in harness on 23-02-1985 while serving in the East Coast Railways. It requires to be noticed that neither the Union of India nor the East Coast Railways is impleaded as a respondent in the Original Application, nor here. The only respondents arrayed are the General Manager, The Divisional Railway Manager (P) and the Senior Divisional Personal Oﬃcer of East Coast Railways. Be that as it may. Late B. Appa Rao died on 23-02-1985 leaving behind his ﬁrst wife--the applicant; another lady Ms. Janaki and three children through Ms. Janak by name B. Ram Prasad, B. Gita Prasad and B. Gayathri. According to the applicant, the marriage between late B. Appa Rao and Ms. Janaki took place with her consent, as is now asserted, since the applicant could not bear children. Ms. Janaki’s children through late Appa Rao were minors at the time of the death of B. Appa Rao. The applicant made a representation on 05-05-1994 to the 3rd respondent seeking compassionate appointment for Master B. Ram Prasad, after he attains the age of 18 years and passes his SSC examination. Eventually, after lot of correspondence intervening, by the letter dated 10-08-2000 the applicant’s request for compassionate appointment for Master B. Ram Prasad was rejected on the ground that no such beneﬁt could be given to the child of the second wife as the relevant compassionate appointment scheme does not accommodate a second marriage. The Tribunal rejected the application correctly observing that the right to compassionate appointment ﬂows from the scheme or the rules framed by the respondent in this regard; that the establishment circular dated 20-01-1992 clearly states that the second wife and her children are not to be considered for compassionate appointment unless the administration had permitted the second marriage; and that the marriage of Appa Rao with Ms. Janaki during the subsistence of the marriage with the applicant not having been permitted by the administration, no compassionate appointment could be granted in favour of Master B. Ram Prasad. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 28-11-2011 Pvks/*