IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4604 of 2010
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL) EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR
3. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
(CONSTRUCTION) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY,
MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) II
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, PATNA
5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER E.C.
RAILWAY, DANAPUR, PATNA
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. MD. IMTEYAZ AHMAD S/O LATE ALIM @
ALIMUDDIN R/O VILL.- BAGHPUR, P.S.-
SADISOPUR, DISTT.- PATNA
2. AHMADI KHATOON W/O LATE ALIM @
ALIMUDDIN R/O VILL.- MILKI MOHALLA, P.S.-
ARRAH TOWN, DISTT.- BHOJPUR
3. ZAREENA KHATOON SECOND WIFE OF LATE
ALIM @ ALIMUDDIN R/O VILL.- BAGHPUR, P.O.-
SADISOPUR, DISTT.- PATNA
.... RESPONDENTS
--------
For the Petitioners : M/s D. K. Sinha, Sr Advocate
Dr Kumar Uday Pratap, Adv.
For the Respondents : M/s Nadeem Seraj and
Satish Kr Sinha, Advocates
——–
6 31.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
The only ground for refusing compassionate
appointment to the respondent was that in view of a
Railway Board’s circular dated 20.1.1992, the sons and
-2-
daughters of second wife are not entitled for appointment
on compassionate ground unless the second marriage has
been contracted with permission of the Railway
authorities.
Without specifically referring to the Railway
Board’s aforesaid circular, a Division Bench of this
Court in a case relating to Railways reported in 2002 (3)
PLJR 146 (Union of India & ors. v. Central
Administrative Tribunals & ors.) held that refusal of
compassionate appointment when the first wife and the
second wife had shared the retiral benefits and the first
wife and nobody else has any objection to claim for
compassionate appointment by a child born of second
wife, was unjustified.
Subsequently, with due reference to the
aforesaid Railway Board’s circular dated 2.1.1992 the
Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the claim of
compassionate appointment in favour of a child born
from the second wife. That matter came before a
Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No.11259 of
2007 (Union of India & ors. v. Most. Ramsakhi Devi &
-3-
ors.). After recording the submissions on the basis of
Railway Board’s circular dated 2.1.1992, the Division
Bench quoted the views of the learned Tribunal and held
that there was not justifiable reason to take a different
view. That view has been subsequently followed by
Division Benches of this Court in the case of (1) Union
of India & ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & ors.
CWJC No.13032 of 2006, decided on 9.7.2010 and (ii)
Union of India & ors. V. Smt. Prem Lata Devi &
another, CWJC No.12985 of 2008, decided on
15.1.2009.
In view of aforesaid consistent view of this
Court, we have no option but to dismiss this writ
petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. )
sk