THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR W.P. No. 2533 of 2008 O R D E R: (Per THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 5.6.2006 in O.A. No. 869 of 2005 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Late B. Muttaiah, who was an employee of the South Central Railways as Senior Gangman under Junior Engineer, Mahaboobabad. He died during the course of employment on 16.9.1997 leaving behind his son B. Chinnappa and other family members. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of B. Chinnappa. Consequent on the death of 1st petitioner’s husband, the 1st petitioner and her son B. Chinnappa made an application to the respondents for appointment of 1st petitioner’s son i.e. B. Chinnappa on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the petitioners that the same was considered by the respondents and a call letter was issued to B. Chinnappa on7.9.1999. In pursuance of the said call letter B. Chinnappa submitted all relevant certificates by attending before the respondents. However, when his appointment was under consideration, B. Chinnappa died on 9.10.2000. The grievance of the petitioners is that now their family is left with no earning member and as B. Chinnappa - the son of petitioner No.1 and the husband of petitioner No.2 died, they sought appointment of petitioner No.2 i.e. the wife of B. Chinnappa on compassionate grounds in any suitable post, but the same is not considered by the respondents. The petitioners filed O.A. before the Tribunal, but the same was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The main objection taken by the respondents for not considering petitioner No.2 herein for appointment on compassionate grounds is that she is not the dependent of her father-in-law who expired while in service on 10.9.1997. It is further stated that earlier the ‘near relatives’ of the deceased employee were also considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, but those instructions are modified in Serial Circular No. 11/1996 and the ‘near relatives’ of the railway employees are excluded from appointment on compassionate ground. However, a perusal of the material available on record discloses that the petitioner No.1 who is the wife of the deceased employee made an application to consider appointment to her son and the same was agreed by the competent authority. Subsequently, before getting appointment B. Chinnappa - the son of petitioner No.1 i.e. the husband of petitioner No.2 – died on 21.2.2000. Because of the death of B. Chinnappa, the petitioner No.1 sought for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds in any suitable post, as there is no other earning member in the family. The fact that there is no other earning member in the family is not disputed. As per the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the following persons are regarded as Class-I heirs: “Son; daughter, widow, mother, son of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased son, son of a predeceased daughter, daughter of a predeceased daughter, widow of a predeceased son, son of predeceased son of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased son, widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son”. In view of the death of B. Chinnappa, the petitioner No.2 who is the wife of late B. Chinnappa has to be treated as Class-I legal heir as per the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, she cannot be termed as ‘near relative’. Petitioner No.2 being the Class-I legal heir and there being no other earning member in the family, we are of the considered view, that she is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in any suitable post. In this case it is pertinent to note that the son of petitioner No.1 and the deceased employee died and petitioner No.1 who is the wife of the deceased employee herself made a representation to give appointment to petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds as there is no other earning member in the family. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Under the above circumstances, we direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner No.2 herein for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post. However, we make it clear that this order is passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and therefore it shall not become a precedent in future. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. T. MEENA KUMARI, J. S. ASHOK KUMAR, J. Date: 03-04-2008. MVB.