Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 79 (CAL)

Jay Prokar Bansfore v. UNION OF INDIA

2012-01-19

NISHITA MHATRE, S.K.MUKHERJEE

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated August 12, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in Original Application No. 663 of 2011. 2. THE employee concerned was a 'khalasi' in the Kanchrapara Workshop. He died on June 22, 1999 in harness. Before his death, he took the petitioner no. 1 in adoption on September 1, 1995. 3. THERE was a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge at Barrackpore, District ? North 24-Parganas, inter alia, for declaration of the status of the petitioner no. 1. The suit was decreed on April 30, 2005 and it was held that the petitioner no. 1 is the adopted son of the deceased employee. 4. IN the year 2009, an application was made for compassionate appointment. The prayer was not considered. The matter was taken to the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. BY the order impugned, the Central Administrative Tribunal disposed of the original application holding, inter alia, that the tribunal was not proper forum for interpretation of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, that is, the widow and the adopted son have come up before this Court. 6. MRS. Chaitali Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appears for the railway authorities and submits that subsequent to the order of the tribunal the Workshop Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kanchrapara, rejected the claim of the writ petitioners on merits. 7. WE have perused the decision of the Workshop Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kanchrapara. He said that adoption was invalid. 8. IT seems that the attention of the railway authorities was not drawn to the decree of the civil court. 9. WE regret to say that the railway authorities failed to construe the decision of the civil court in its proper perspective. In Title Suit No. 267 of 2001, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barrackpore, District- North 24-Parganas, inter alia, declared that the petitioner no. 1 was the adopted son of the plaintiff, that is, the widow of the deceased employee. It was declared, further, that at the time of adoption, the petitioner no. 1 was aged about ten years, that is, he was minor. 10. ONCE the status has been declared by the civil court, it is not open to the railway authorities to challenge the status of the person concerned. 11. It was declared, further, that at the time of adoption, the petitioner no. 1 was aged about ten years, that is, he was minor. 10. ONCE the status has been declared by the civil court, it is not open to the railway authorities to challenge the status of the person concerned. 11. SINCE the prayer for compassionate appointment was not considered in proper perspective and as the tribunal erroneously approached that the tribunal could not interpret the grievance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, we set aside the order of the tribunal and consequential order of the Workshop Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kanchrapara. 12. WE grant liberty to the petitioners to make a representation seeking compassionate appointment before the Senior Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata, by fortnight. 13. IN the event, an application is made, the Senior Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, Kolkata, shall consider the representation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their representatives, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a month from the date of receipt of such representation. He is directed to proceed on the basis that the petitioner no. 1 was the adopted son of the deceased employee. 14. WITH the aforesaid directions, the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is disposed of. We make no order as to costs. The office is directed to supply xerox certified copy of this order to the applicant, if applied for, on urgent basis.