IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2433 of 2010 Santosh Kumar, son of late Satya Narain Rai, Resident of Jamalluddinchak, P.O. Khagaul, Police Station- Danapur, District- Patna ---- -- Respondent/ Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manger, E.C. Railway Hajipur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Danapur. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, E.C. Railway, Danapur. 4. Bijendra Prasad, son of late Satya Narain Yadav, resident of Jamalluddinchak, P.O. Khagaul, P.S. Danapur, District- Patna ---- Respondents. --------- 2. 11.2.2010 Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the Indian Railways and its functionaries. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure-7), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 348 of 2007 (Bijendra Prasad Vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application has been allowed, the appointment of the petitioner herein on compassionate ground has been set aside, and respondent no.4 herein has instead been directed to be appointed on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order and submits that the learned Tribunal has not attached any 2 importance to the Panchnama and the agreement between the parties, whereby the family properties were equitably distributed and as part of the deed of consensus it was decided that petitioner no.1 shall be entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner and respondent no.4 are step brothers, are sons of late Satya Narain Yadav who was working as Gate man in E.C. Railway, Danapur Division. He died on 15.7.2006, while still in harness. Respondent no.4 herein is the only son of late Satya Narain Yadav by his first wife who is dead. The petitioner herein is one of the three sons of late Satya Narain Yadav by his second wife who is alive. After the death of the employee, the petitioner herein filed an application before the authorities for his appointment on compassionate ground which was allowed. Respondent no.4 herein challenged the same by preferring the aforesaid O.A. No. 348 of 2007, which has been allowed by the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that respondent no.4 is the eldest son of the late employee and, 3 therefore, be given benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the Tribunal is the forum of facts and has on a consideration of the entire materials on record, come to the conclusion that the eldest son of the deceased late employee should be preferred for compassionate appointment in comparison to younger one. We do not find fault in exercise of discretion on the part of the Tribunal. No ground for interference has been made out. This writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal,J.)