CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10784 OF 2008 1. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF LATE RAMDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BARKI DELHA DULARGANJ, POLICE STATION- DELHA, DISTRICT- GAYA. 2. MOST DHANMATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMDEO RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BARKI DELHA DULARGANJ, POLICE STATION-DELHA, DISTRICT- GAYA ---------------------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST RAILWAY HAJIPUR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EAST RAILWAY, NOW EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUGALSARAI (U.P.). 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUGALSWARAI (U.P.) ----------------------Respondents For The Petitioners : Mr. AJAY KUMAR SHARMA, Advocate. For The Respondents :Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J & Kishore K. Mandal, J This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure-13), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. no. 408 of 2006, whereby the original application preferred by the petitioners for compassionate appointment of Manoj Kumar(petitioner no. 1), has been rejected. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Petitioner no. 1 claims to have been adopted by one Ram Deo Ram, a former employee of Railways, on 26.12.1980, when he was aged about three years. The employee died on 10.4.1999, while still in harness. Petitioner 2 no. 1 filed an application dated 22.5.1999, before the authorities for his appointment on compassionate ground. An inquiry was conducted, and his application was ultimately rejected, leading to O.A. no. 565 of 2002, which was disposed of by order dated 19.7.2002 (Annexure-7), whereby the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation before the authorities who were required to reconsider his case. His case was rejected leading to O.A. no. 99 of 2003, which was disposed of by order dated 24.11.2003 (Annexure-9), and the authorities were directed to reconsider his representation by a reasoned order. In compliance of the order of the Tribunal, the respondent authorities have reconsidered his case and rejected his claim by a reasoned order dated 29.8.2005 (Annexure-12), leading to O.A. no. 408 of 2006, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure-13). In fact, O.A. no. 408 of 2006 is the 4th original application of the petitioners. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears from a perusal of the order dated 29.8.2005 (Annexure- 12), that the deceased employee died leaving behind his widow and Manoj Kumar, who are the two petitioners herein. He did not leave behind any daughter. Petitioner no. 2 was paid a sum of Rs. 3,08,992/- towards post-retiral benefits admissible to the employee, and was paid to petitioner no. 2 in the capacity of the widow of the late employee. She is also drawing monthly 3 pension. Furthermore, the late employee had never informed the railway administration about the adoption. The late employee did not leave behind any liability. In other words, the respondent authorities have, after consideration of the entire materials before them, come to the conclusion that the family is not in impecunious circumstances. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly agreed with the respondent authorities that the very justification for grant of compassionate appointment is absent in the present case. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 26th February, 2010 NAFR/pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )