Case Note & Summary
The Union of India (Railways) filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 6 March 2014 and 26 August 2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 110 of 2014 and Review Petition No. 29 of 2014. The CAT had directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent, V.R. Tripathi, son of late Ramlakhan Tripathi (a permanent railway employee who died in harness on 28 November 2009), for compassionate appointment. The direction was merely to consider, not to appoint. The petitioners argued that compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment and must be strictly in accordance with rules and circulars. They relied on Railway Board's circular dated 2 January 1992, which disentitles children from a second marriage contracted without permission from the railways. The petitioners submitted that this circular had been upheld by the Bombay High Court in Pratibha D. Salve v. Union of India and Union of India v. Pradeep Uttam Gid, and by the Jharkhand High Court in Union of India v. Basanti Devi. The CAT had refused to follow the circular on the ground that it was struck down as unconstitutional by the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar v. Union of India. The Bombay High Court held that the CAT was bound by the decisions of the Bombay High Court, which had upheld the circular, and could not rely on a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the CAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the circular. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respondent's claim.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Railway Board Circular - Second Marriage - The issue pertains to the validity of a Railway Board circular dated 2 January 1992 which provides that where a deceased employee contracted a second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage without obtaining permission from the railways, the second wife or children from the second wife are not entitled to compassionate appointment. The CAT directed consideration of the respondent's case for compassionate appointment, refusing to follow the circular on the ground that it was struck down by the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar. The Bombay High Court held that the CAT ought to have followed the circular as upheld by the Bombay High Court in Pratibha D. Salve and Pradeep Uttam Gid, and set aside the CAT orders, remanding the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the circular. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was justified in directing consideration of the respondent's case for compassionate appointment despite the Railway Board's circular dated 2 January 1992 which disentitles children from a second marriage contracted without permission from the railways.
Final Decision
The impugned orders dated 6 March 2014 and 26 August 2014 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the Railway Board's circular dated 2 January 1992. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respondent's claim.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment
- not a source of appointment
- Railway Board circular dated 2 January 1992
- second marriage without permission disentitles second wife/children to compassionate appointment
- CAT cannot ignore High Court decisions on same circular
- direction to consider does not mandate appointment
