Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Original Application No. 945 of 2011. Case: 1. Bhagunti Bai alias Bhagwati Bai, 2. Raja Bhai alias Raja Babu Vs 1. The General Manager, West Central Railway, 2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), 3. Deshraj Yadav. Central Administrative Tribunal

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberOriginal Application No. 945 of 2011
Party Name1. Bhagunti Bai alias Bhagwati Bai, 2. Raja Bhai alias Raja Babu Vs 1. The General Manager, West Central Railway, 2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), 3. Deshraj Yadav
CounselFor Appellant: Advocate Ms. Malti Dadariya and For Respondent: Advocate Shri Amit Kumar Jaiswal
JudgesDhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member & G P Singhal, Administrative Member
IssueAdministrative Law
Judgement DateAugust 08, 2013
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

GP Singhal, Administrative Member, (Jablapur Bench)

  1. The applicant in this Original Application has prayed for the following reliefs:-

    I. Hon''ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment and make the payment of pension to applicant No.1 with all consequential benefits holding therein that Deshraj Yadav is not entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and not entitled to get compassionate appointment being not the son of legally wedded wife Bhagunti Bai and as Bhagunti Bai gave her consent for considering the case of Raja Bhai, her son, for compassionate appointment.

    II. Any other relief which this Hon''ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.

  2. The applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of the deceased employee Late Man Singh, who was working as Gangman with the respondents. However, the respondents have not given pensionary benefits to the applicant No.1, and compassionate appointment to applicant No.2, who is the son of applicant No.1, on the ground, that in the records of Railways, names of another woman Smt. Malti Bai and her children are mentioned, as family members of the deceased employee, who are nominated to receive the retiral benefits. Therefore, the applicant filed an application for grant of succession certificate before the First Additional Civil Judge Class I, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, who have decreed on 05.01.2011 (Annexure A-2) that while the sons and daughter of Smt. Malti Bai are legal heirs of Late Man Singh along with the applicant No.1 and 2, Smt. Malti Bai is not legal heir. Thus, the Civil Court has not considered Smt. Malti Bai to be the legally wedded wife of Late Man Singh and, therefore, the applicant No.1, being the only legally wedded wife of late Man Singh, deserves to be paid family pension and other retiral benefits as per the rules.

  3. The applicants further submitted that the applicant No.2 is entitled to get compassionate appointment, instead of respondent No.4, who is the son of Smt. Malti Bai, as according to the prevalent rules, son of second widow, with whom employee did not enter into wedlock with the permission of administration, is not entitled to get compassionate appointment.

  4. The official respondents, in their reply, submitted that the applicant has not been paid retiral benefits as her husband...

To continue reading

Request your trial