IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4979 of 2007 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus MD.SHAKIL AKHTAR ANSARI ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Parashuram Singh, advocate For the respondent : Mr. Gautam Bose, Senior Advocate Ms. Ratna Das, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 02nd September, 2008 We heard Mr. D.K.Sinha, senior counsel for the petitioners. The Tribunal in paragraph 5 of the impugned order considered the matter thus: “Declaration of the family members as contained in Annexure-A-7 signed by the deceased employee during his service tenure shows that the applicant born on 12.2.1977 was duly declared as his younger brother. It is also borne from Provident Fund nomination as contained in Annexure A-3 that the applicant was nominated to receive fund in the event of death of the deceased employee. It is not disputed that retiral benefits including the amount of PF have been paid to the applicant. The applicant has also filed an affidavit as contained in Annexure-A-5/1. The respondents have failed to bring on record any document in rebuttal to dislodge the claim of the applicant to be treated as dependent- brother (younger to the deceased employee). The deceased employee was born in the year 1952. Thus he died at the age of about 50 years leaving behind two unmarried sisters and others. The applicant has stated on affidavit that he is now responsible (after the death of his elder brother) to maintain the divorced sister as well as unmarried sister. He has also stated that the family is placed in indigent circumstances. Taking into account the entire set up facts I - 2 - am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained.” 2. The senior counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that all retiral benefits of the deceased employee Jameel Akhtar Ansari have been paid to the present respondent Md. Shakil Akhtar Ansari. He also did not dispute that the employee had initially intimated the railways that his father and mother were his dependents. He also did not dispute that after the death of the parents, an application was made by the deceased employee for grant of pass facility to the respondent as the dependent of the deceased. He, however, submits that the said application was never accepted by the railways. The fact that during his life time, the deceased employee intimated the railway authorities that pass facility may be given to the present respondent as his dependent would show that the claim of dependency set up by the respondent in the application for compassionate appointment was not without any basis. 3. The consideration of the matter by the Tribunal appears to us to be proper justifying no interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court. 4. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil