JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in its PB/CS/30/MAS/Misc/2016/Vol-1, dated 27.01.2017 and 14.02.2017 as confirmed by the order of the 3rd respondent in O.A.No.923/2017, dated 14.08.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein on compassionate grounds in any suitable posts with all attendant and consequential benefits.) D. Krishnakumar, J. 1.Challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No. 923 of 2017, dated 14.08.2018, confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in PB/CS/30/MS/Misc/2016/Vol-1, dated 27.01.2017 and 14.02.2017, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner herein is the adopted son of late Selvaraj who worked as Gangman in the Railways, who died in harness, while in service on 24.12.2002. The petitioner has made a representation to the department in the 2003 seeking compassionate appointment for the death of the said Selvaraj. The representation was rejected by the respondent on 08.07.2003. Subsequently, the mother of the deceased employee namely Annammal has filed a suit before the Civil Court claiming legal heirship and for terminal benefits of the deceased employee. The suit ended in favour of the said Annammal, the mother of the deceased employee. Thereafter after a lapse of 13 years on 18.03.2016, the said Annammal has sent representation for compassionate appointment to the respondent. The said request was rejected by the respondent-department. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an application in O.A.No 923 of 2017 and the said application was also dimissed as against the writ petitioner herein and hence the present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of adopted son to the deceased employee, namely D.Selvaraj. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner herein is the adopted son of late D.Selvaraj who worked as Gangman with the respondent authorities and died in harness while in service on 24.12.2002. The petitioner is the brother''s son of the deceased employee, his name has been entered in the service register and Medical records of the said deceased Selvaraj. 4. The petitioner is the brother''s son of the deceased employee, his name has been entered in the service register and Medical records of the said deceased Selvaraj. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner''s grandmother Annammal (mother of Selvaraj) filed O.S.No. 117 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam declaring herself to be the legal heir of Late Selvaraj and for consequential injunction to the railway authorities not to disburse the family pension and terminal benefits to one Rani, who claimed to the wife of the deceased. The said Rani was also impleaded as 6th respondent in the said Suit. The said suit was dismissed by the lower court. Challeging the said order, the petitioner''s grandmother had filed A.S.No. 18/2014 before the Sub Court, Arakkonam. The lower appellate Court, after detailed consideration of documents and evidence, has set aside the above decree and concluded that the petitioner''s grandmother Annammal alone is entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits and also concluded that the said Rani was not the legal heir of the deceased Selvaraj, therefore she was not entitled any benefits of Late Selvaraj. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that subsequent to the favarouble decree, the petitioner''s grandmother being the legal heir of the deceased Selvaraj, requested the respondent department to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The said request was rejected by the 2nd respondent by orders dated 27.01.2017 and 14.02.2017 on the ground that though an adopted son was entitled to seek compassiionate appointment as per the Railway Board Circulars, no proof of adoption was submitted. Challening the rejection orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioenr has filed an application in O.A.No. 923/2017 before the Central Adminstrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench. However, the tribunal without adverting to the issue on hand and without taking note of the significat admission made by the respondent authorities, dismissed the said Original Application by order dated 14.08.2018. Hence the present writ petition has been filed to set aside the order of the tribunal and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 6. Hence the present writ petition has been filed to set aside the order of the tribunal and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent -railways has submitted that the mother of the deceased employee, namely ,D.Selvaraj has initially filed an original application in O.A.No. 265/2003, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, seeking directions to settle the service benefits and other benefits of the deceased employee. The original applciation was disposed of by the tribunal, by order dared 19.03.2003, giving directions to the respondent authority to pass orders after giving due notice to one Rani, who claimed to be the wife of the deceased employee. 7. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that based on the documents viz., Voters list, daughter''s school certificate, birth certificate submitted by the said Rani, which shows she is the wife of the deceased employee. The respondent-authority has sent a communication to the said Rani that the settlement will be processed in of her favour. However, subsequent to the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 18 of 2014, dated 27.01.2020 in favour of Annammal, the mother of the deceased employee, the respondent authority has sanctioned the family pension and other terminal benefits to his mother. 8. The learned standing counsel has further submitted that the said Annammal, has neither shown the petitioner herein as the legal heri nor as a plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner did not challenge the initial rejection order dated 08.07.2003 passed by the respondent authority. After a lapse of 14 years, on 08.03.2016 & 16.09.2016, the mother of the deceased emloyee has submitted representations claiming compassionate appointment for the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent, by order dated 27.01.2017 on the ground that there is no satisfactory proof submitted for the adoption of petitioner by the deceased employee. The tribunal in the impugned rejection order also rightly considered all the above aspects and non submission vital documents by the petitioner herein to substantiate his claim of adoption and dismissed the original application. Therefore, nothing warrants interference by this Court, as claimed by the petitioner and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Mr.S.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and perused the documents available on record. 10. Therefore, nothing warrants interference by this Court, as claimed by the petitioner and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard Mr.S.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and perused the documents available on record. 10. In light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondent authorities, this Court is tasked with evaluating the legal and factual intricacies surrounding the petitioner''s claim for compassionate appointment as the adopted son of the deceased employee, late D. Selvaraj who worked as a Senior Trackman in the Southern Railway and died while in service on 24.12.2002. 11. A perusal of records reveals that the initial request for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner''s grandmother, Smt. Annammal, after the demise of Shri D. Selvaraj in 2002, was rejected in 2003 due to the lack of valid proof of adoption. This decision was not contested by the petitioner. Subsequently, after a lapse of 14 years, another attempt was made by Smt. Annammal in the year 2016 to seek compassionate appointment for the petitioner. However, this also met with rejection due to the absence of substantial evidence supporting the petitioner''s claim of adoption. 12. Though petitioner strongly contended that he was adopted by Shri D. Selvaraj on 05.12.1986, the documents presented by the petitioner to support his claim of adoption paint a different picture. For instance, the community certificate issued to the petitioner in 2007, the employment registration card issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 02.11.2018 and the affidavit submitted by the petitioner before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, in 2003, consistently mentioned his father''s name as one Dhanapal. Even in a resume the petitioner submitted to another institution, dated 08.03.2016, he again indicated his father''s name as Dhanapal. These documents collectively proves a consistent use of the name, Dhanapal as the petitioner''s father. In view of lack of conclusive evidence supporting the petitioner''s claim of adoption, the respondent/Railway Board rejected the petitioner''s request for compassionate appointment vide Letter No. E(NG)11/86/RC 1-1/Policy, dated 27.10.2017. 13. After a thorough examination of the facts and evidence put forth in this case, it is apparent that the petitioner has not been able to provide substantial evidence to support his claim of being adopted by the deceased employee, D. Selvaraj. 13. After a thorough examination of the facts and evidence put forth in this case, it is apparent that the petitioner has not been able to provide substantial evidence to support his claim of being adopted by the deceased employee, D. Selvaraj. The lack of consistent and reliable documentation to support the petitioner''s assertion significantly weakens the validity of his claim. 14. Furthermore, the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court in various decisions have repeatedly held that compassionate appointment is discretionary and meant to alleviate financial difficulties arising from an employee''s demise, and it is not an inherent right. Now 21 years have lapsed after the death of the said D.Selvaraj and there is no mitigating circumstances existing to prove compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, We find no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned rejection order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No. 923 of 2017 dated 14.08.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.