Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the Union of India and railway authorities against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 13.05.2015. The CAT had allowed a review application (RA No.1/2014) and consequently allowed the main Original Application (OA No.587/2013) directing the petitioners to consider the second respondent (son of the deceased employee from his second wife) for compassionate appointment. The deceased employee, V. Nagraj, died on 11.10.1998 leaving behind three wives. The respondents (first respondent being the second wife and second respondent being her son) had initially filed OA No.587/2013 seeking compassionate appointment for the second respondent. The Tribunal initially dismissed the OA, but later allowed a review, finding an error apparent on record as the earlier order had not considered the relevant rules regarding compassionate appointment. The High Court, in the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, examined whether the Tribunal's review order was sustainable. The Court noted that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to review its own order if there was an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court found that the Tribunal had correctly identified an error in the earlier order and had directed consideration of the second applicant for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the Tribunal's order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - The Tribunal allowed review of its earlier order dismissing OA, finding that the earlier order suffered from an error apparent on record as it failed to consider that the second applicant (son from second wife) was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Railway Servants (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order allowing review was within its jurisdiction and did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227. (Paras 3-6)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Entitlement of Son from Second Wife - The deceased employee had three wives; the second applicant was the son from the second wife. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the second applicant for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time limit. The High Court upheld this direction, noting that the earlier order had not considered the relevant rules. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the review application and directing consideration of the second applicant for compassionate appointment, and whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13.05.2015 which allowed the review application and directed the petitioners to consider the second respondent for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time limit.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on record
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- Railway Servants (Revised Pay) Rules
- 2008
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (11) 44
Writ Petition No.37642 of 2015 (S-CAT)
Jayant Patel, Sreenivas Harish Kumar
Abhinay Y T (for petitioners), Izhar Ahmed (for respondents)
Union of India, Divisional Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, Divisional Railway Manager, South Western Railway
Smt. R. Lakshmidevamma and L.N. Chetan Sharma
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing review and directing compassionate appointment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (Union of India and railway authorities) sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 13.05.2015 and consequently dismiss the review petition.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order allowing review and directing consideration of the second respondent for compassionate appointment, contending that the review was not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal initially dismissed OA No.587/2013 filed by the respondents, but later allowed review application RA No.1/2014 and allowed the OA directing consideration for compassionate appointment.
Issues
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the review application and directing consideration of the second applicant for compassionate appointment.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the Tribunal's order.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tribunal's order allowing review was without jurisdiction and that there was no error apparent on record.
Respondents supported the Tribunal's order, contending that the earlier order suffered from an error apparent on record as it failed to consider the relevant rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court under Articles 226 and 227 will not interfere with such an order unless it suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity. In this case, the Tribunal correctly identified an error in the earlier order and directed consideration of the second applicant for compassionate appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition is directed against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal... whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the review application and has allowed the main OA by directing the respondents to consider the second applicant for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time limit.
The short relevant facts of the case appears to be that initially O.A.No.587/2013 was preferred by the respondents for the compassionate appointment of respondent No.2 contending interalia that one Sri V.Nagraj, who was employee of the petitioners died on 11.10.1998 leaving behind three wives.
Procedural History
The respondents initially filed OA No.587/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking compassionate appointment for the second respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the OA. The respondents then filed a review application (RA No.1/2014), which was allowed by the Tribunal on 13.05.2015, and the main OA was allowed directing consideration for compassionate appointment. The petitioners challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Railway Servants (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008:
