Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1037 (JHR)

Union Of India v. Md. Farid

2018-05-09

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent. 2. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi by order dated 11th May, 2009 passed in O. A. No. 66 of 2009 has quashed the order dated 22nd July, 2008 issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad refusing to consider the case of the applicant/respondent herein for compassionate appointment. Petitioner-Railways had refused to consider the case of the applicant solely on the ground that he is the son of the ex-employee''s second wife. It relied upon the circular dated 2nd February, 1992 of Railway-Board, where under such a child born out of second marriage of the employee are not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned Tribunal has remitted the matter to the respondent-Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on its own merit by passing a speaking order. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that the very issue of compassionate appointment under the Railways to the dependent son born out of second marriage of an employee dying in harness was under consideration in the case of Union of India v. Suraj Kumar Prasad & Ors. with analogous case by Full Bench of this Court. The following question was referred for consideration before the Full Bench:- " Whether the Union of India/Railway Board can use Circular No. 1 of 1992, dated 2nd January, 1992 arising out of Rule 21 of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 in similar matters, after it being quashed by Hon''ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar and another v. Union of India and others(supra) and that too said decision of Hon''ble Calcutta High Court has neither been challenged by the Union of India/Railway Board before the Apex Court nor any further circular has ever been notified after the judgment of the Calcutta High Court." 4. Learned Full Bench vide its judgment dated 16th June, 2017 reported in [2018 (1) J CR147 (Jhr) (FB)] answered the reference in the following manner: "16. Learned Full Bench vide its judgment dated 16th June, 2017 reported in [2018 (1) J CR147 (Jhr) (FB)] answered the reference in the following manner: "16. The issue to be decided by this Larger Bench regarding reference made is being answered accordingly as follows: Once the Railways Board''s Circular No. 1/1992, dated 02.01.1992 has been quashed by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar (supra) to the extent it prevents the children of second wife from being considered for appointment on compassionate ground and the said decision attained finality, having not been challenged by the Railway authorities, the Circular of the Railway Board to the extent quashed by the Hon''ble Calcutta High Court is no more in existence and no benefit thereof can be taken by the Railway Authorities unless a contrary view is taken by the Apex Court. As such, the Railway Board is stopped from taking the advantage of the Circular No. 1/1992 dated 02.01.1992 arising out of Rule 21 of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 in similar matters after it being quashed by Hon''ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar and another v. Union of India and others. Resultantly we hold that the Central Administrative Tribunal has rightly decided the O.A. No. 212 of 2011(R) rejecting the contention of the Railway Board. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.05.2012 passed in O.A. No. 212 of 2011(R) and as such, the writ petition merits dismissal. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed and the order dated 04.05.2012 passed in O.A. No. 212 of 2011 (R) is upheld. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the issue stands decided as of now by the opinion rendered by learned Full Bench of this Court. 6. In the light of opinion rendered by learned Full Bench of this Court quoted above, we, therefore, do not find any grounds to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.