The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9730 of 2024 Kiran Patra ..... Petitioner Union Of India & Ors. -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Pradosh Kumar Das Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. - P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with D.Gochhayat, C.G.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 28.02.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). I.A. No.2378 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press the I.A. application. 3.
Decision
Accordingly, the I.A. application is disposed of as not pressed. WP(C) No.9730 of 2024 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along with learned Central Govt. Counsel for the Union of India-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. Page 1 of 6. 5. The present writ application has been filed with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to issue compassionate order of appointment in favour of the present Petitioner as per Annexure-1. 6. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ application at the instance of the Petitioner in a nut shell is that the Petitioner happens to be the son of the first wife of one late Dibakar Patra, who was working with Railways as Head Commercial Clerk/ SSP and died in harness on 08.12.2008. Thereafter, the mother of the present Petitioner, namely, Kanaklata Patra approached the DRM, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, West Bengal requesting for release of the pensionary benefits in her favour and to issue an order of compassionate appointment in favour of the present Petitioner. Since no action was taken, the mother of the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.853 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2012 directing the railway authorities to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the mother of the Petitioner and to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. It has also been pleaded in the body of the writ application that one Binod Kumar Patra, claiming himself to the son of the deceased railway employee through his second wife, approached the C.A.T., Kolkata Bench, Kolkata wherein the mother of the present Petitioner was arrayed as an Opposite Party. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2015 with certain directions. Pursuant to such directions the railway authorities passed a speaking order rejecting the claim of the second wife’s son, namely, Binod Kumar Patra vide order dated 03.09.2015. The above named Binod Kumar Patra approached the learned C.A.T., Kolkata Bench, Kolkata challenging Page 2 of 6. order dated 03.09.2015. The learned C.A.T., Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, vide their order dated 20.01.2016, quashed the order passed by the railway authorities and further directed the Railway Board to reconsider the matter. 8. While the matter stood thus, the railway authorities preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court by filling W.P.(CT) No.155 of 2016 challenging the order passed by the learned C.A.T., Kolkata Bench, Kolkata. It appears that the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court passed some orders in favour of the above named Binod Kumar Patra and directed the authorities to give appointment without considering the case of the present Petitioner. After disposal of the writ application by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court, the railway authorities moved an M.A. before the Tribunal for modification of order dated 20.01.2016. 9. On 06.05.2016, the learned C.A.T., Cuttack Bench, Cuttack passed an order in O.A. No.338 of 2014 filed by the mother of the present Petitioner, wherein the second wife of the deceased railway employee, namely Kalyani Patra, was made an Opposite Party. In the aforesaid order dated 06.05.2016, the railway authorities were directed to pay the pensionary benefits in favour of the mother of the present Petitioner. 10. The pleadings further reveal that the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court dismissed the W.P.(CT) No.115 of 2016 vide order dated 26.08.2016. As against the order of dismissal, the railway authorities approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing an SLP bearing SLP (C) No.14010 of 2017 challenging the order passed by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 07.05.2019 disposed of the above noted SLP Page 3 of 6. by directing the railway authorities to consider the case of the claimants in terms of the judgment dated 11.12.2018 in Civil Appeal No.12015 of 2018 titled Union of India and Anr. vs. V.R. Tripathi. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the present petitioner, being the son of the first wife, has the first right to claim compassionate appointment and accordingly, he has submitted his application. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner should have been considered in priority over any of the other claimants claiming appointment on compassionate ground in respect of the deceased railway employees. He further submitted that the learned C.A.T., Kolkata Bench, Kolkata vide order dated 29.03.2022 has observed that the first wife of the deceased employee, who is alive, and one of her son having applied for appointment on compassionate ground, his case should have been considered by the railway authorities. Accordingly, on 01.07.2022, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer issued a notice to the Petitioner intimating him to remain present for personal hearing on 22.07.2022. On 22.07.2022, the Petitioner attended the office of the DRM, Eastern Railway, Sealdah, West Bengal with relevant documents. Finally, vide order dated 02.09.2022, the Railway Administration passed a speaking order which was communicated to both the Petitioner as well as Binod Kumar Patra, who is the son of the second wife of the deceased railway employee. In the order dated 02.09.2022, the Railway Administration had taken a decision to consider the appointment of the present petitioner on compassionate ground as he is the son of the first wife of the deceased railway employee. Since no action has been taken pursuant to the decision dated 02.09.2022, being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the present Petitioner has Page 4 of 6. approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 12. Learned Central Govt. Counsel on the other hand raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ application. He further contended that since the issue involved in the present writ application pertains to appointment in the railways and the service matters pertaining to the railways having been notified to be raised before and adjudicated by the concerned Central Administrative Tribunal, the jurisdiction of this Court to that extent is to be ousted. In such view of the matter, learned C.G.C. submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is ousted to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He further contended that earlier also the Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, on this occasion, he has approached this Court directly. As such, the present writ application is not maintainable in view of the fact that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the Petitioner for redressal of his grievance. On such ground, learned C.G.C. submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable and as such, the writ application is liable to be thrown out at the threshold as not maintainable. 13. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of their submissions, further on a close scrutiny of the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that the issue involved in the present writ application is with regard to appointment on compassionate ground of the Petitioner by the railway authorities as the father of the Petitioner, while working as railway employee, died in harness on 08.12.2008. Since the dispute involved in the present writ application is a service dispute pertaining to the railways, this Court is of the Page 5 of 6. considered view that the dispute can only be entertained by the Central Administrative Tribunal and not by this Court. The law in this regard is well settled, therefore, the same does not require any further discussion. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate Tribunal by filing an O.A. as expeditiously as possible. In the event, such an O.A. is filed, the learned Tribunal shall do well to consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the Petitioner has been seeking appointment on compassionate ground since the death of his father w.e.f. 08.12.2008. 14. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 15. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 28-Feb-2025 18:15:19