Allowed

Smt. Reena v. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Bench Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/3155/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition quashing the rejection of a widow's claim for compassionate appointment. Directed the General Manager to consider the claim sympathetically under the Master Circular clause empowering the Ministry of Railways to relax educational qualifications, given the petitioner's financial dependency.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 9.2.2018 was quashed. Petitioner directed to make representation to General Manager for consideration under Clause VI-b with specified time limits for forwarding to the Ministry o

Smt. Reena Vs Central Administrative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:533

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3155 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Reena Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Bench Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Akansha Dubey,A.S.G.I.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.02.2018 passed by Respondent No.4 whereby the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not having minimum qualification i.e. High School and also that she is not the bread earner of the family being widow daughter.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner had expired on 2.11.2008 while working on the post of Chawkidar at Railway Station - Gola Gikarannath, District - Kheri.

¶9

The petitioner who was living with his father after the demise of her husband in the year 2001 and applied for compassionate appointment for the first time in the year 2010.

¶10

It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2013 on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the death certificate issued by the Registrar and did not come under the category of dependent of the deceased. The petitioner is married and she was not dependent on her father.

¶11

The petitioner had challenged the order dated 14.11.2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal but the O.A. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, against which the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. Service Bench No.1865 of 2015 before this Court challenging the judgement passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the rejection order dated 14.11.2013.

¶12

The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide its judgement and order dated 23.11.2017. The relevant paras are extracted hereinbelow:

¶13

" In the present case it is not disputed that as per Policy of the respondents the widowed daughter is entitled for consideration on compassionate ground.

¶14

For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 14.11.2013 passed by opposite party no.4/Senior Divisional Personal Officer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow and the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.

¶15

However, opposite party no.4/ Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of Policy, keeping in view the fact that at the time of death of Late Bhagwandeen the petitioner who claims to be his daughter Smt. Reena was widow and was living at maika. The said representation shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Petition is allowed."

¶17

In pursuance of the judgement dated 23.11.2017 the petitioner again approached the authorities by making a representation and the same was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2017 almost on the same grounds and by adding further a new ground that the petitioner is not having minimum educational qualification i.e. High School for appointment on Group D post and as per Pariwar Register, she is uneducated.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once the Hon'ble Court in its judgement dated 23.11.2017 has held that the petitioner is entitled for consideration being a widow daughter for appointment on compassionate ground by a categorical finding that she was living at her Maika then there was no occasion for the authorities to deny the claim on the ground that the petitioner is not the bread earner of the family. It is further submitted that the authorities now had taken a new ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that she was not having the minimum education qualification i.e. High School, rather giving a finding that she is uneducated whereas, the petitioner is 8th pass and in support of her submission the copy of the transfer certificate has been enclosed alongwith the writ petition.

¶19

It is further submitted that as per the Master Circular No.16 relating to appointment on compassionate ground Clause VI-b provides qualification and conditions to be fulfilled and power given to the General Manager for relaxation of the minimum

¶20

education qualifications by referring the matter to the Ministry of Railways but in the present case the authorities in place of exercising the said discretionary power had directly rejected the claim of the petitioner arbitrarily without considering that being a widow she was living in her Maika since year 2001 after the death of her husband and was fully dependent on her father.

¶21

On the other hand learned counsel for the Railways has submitted that minimum educational qualification required for consideration for appointment on Group D post is Class 10 and if it is treated that the petitioner is 8th pass even then there is nothing to be considered for appointment on Group D post but she is unable to defend the Clause VI-b of the Master Circular relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has very fairly conceded that the case of the petitioner has not been considered under Clause VI-b of Master Circular.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the position which emerges out is that the authorities may have referred the matter as Per Clause VI-b of the Master Circular No.16 to the Ministry of Railways looking into the hardship faced by the petitioner after demise of her father being widow and dependent upon him.

¶23

In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion made hereinabove the writ petition is allowed.

¶24

The impugned order dated 9.2.2018 is hereby quashed.

¶25

The petitioner is directed to make a representation to the General manager under Clause VI-b of the Master Policy Circular No.16 within a period of two weeks who may consider the same sympathetically and do the needful within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner and he may refer the matter to the Ministry of Railways within the aforesaid period and the Ministry may decide the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of any proposal forwarded by the General Manager.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 S. Kumar

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Reena v. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Bench Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reena v. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Bench Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Khizir Khan Vs State of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Home Lko and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Devp. Lko. andORS.

Kishori Laal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Horticulture Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance U.P. Lko.

Smt. Pushpa Anil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 5 Others