High Court · 2025

Advocate holding brief of Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner, wife of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was an employee in the Railways posted as Store Khalasi under SSE(W) line, Munnuwar Bagh, Lucknow, has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in Original Application No. 332/00248/2018 along with Original Application No. 332/00546/2019.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was working as Store Khalasi in Railways, died in harness on 23.03.2017. He had married twice. The opposite party no.3 is the son from the first wife and the petitioner is the second wife. It is not in dispute that late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava had divorced the earlier wife and his second marriage with the petitioner took place subsequently. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. However, it appears that after his death, a dispute occurred as to whether the petitioner or the opposite party no.3 should be given compassionate appointment. Two decisions were taken, both on the same date, that is on 07.05.2018. By one decision, contained Annexure No.6 to the petition, the claim of opposite party no.3 was declined on the ground that the legally wedded wife had a preferential right of being considered for appointment. Reference was made in this regard to a letter of the Railway Board dated 21.03.2018. By the other decision, contained as Annexure no.2 to the petition, it was decided to consider the claim of the petitioner subject to other conditions prescribed for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, this decision could not be acted upon as at that point of time the undertaking was not given by the petitioner, as stated by Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and the No-Objection Certificate from the other family members was not received. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that undertaking had been given, copy of which has been annexed with the petition. On being confronted, Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India could not deny this fact, rather he accepted it but he reiterated that the No-Objection Certificate by the other family members had not been given.

4. We fail to understand that in the facts of the case when the petitioner, the legally wedded wife of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, had a right to be considered for compassionate appointment and the claim of opposite party no.3 had been rejected, then what for the No-Objection Certificate was required. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the offer made by her before this Court, as recorded in the order dated

28.07.2022, meaning thereby the petitioner is ready to part with her salary to the extent of 35 percent in favour of opposite party no.3. The said order dated 28.07.2022 has not been acted upon as yet. The order dated 28.07.2022 reads as under :- "The claim of the petitioner for appointment has already been considered and a letter of appointment dated 7.5.2018 was issued in her favour. The letter dated 7.5.2018 stipulates a condition of furnishing 'NOC' from the other dependents. It is for want of NOC by the other dependents that the order dated 7.5.2018 is not being acted upon. The petitioner assailed the condition of furnishing NOC before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') and simultaneously the opposite party no. 3 also instituted Original Application No. 248 of 2018 assailing the order dated 7.5.2018 whereby the claim for his appointment was rejected. The Tribunal having clubbed both the cases, proceeded to pass the impugned order whereby a direction has been issued to the department for consideration of the rival claims, on the representations permitted to be made by both the parties. It is this judgement/order passed by the Tribunal which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that once the appointment of the petitioner was found favour with, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased, the order of appointment cannot be subjected to a further condition of furnishing NOC from other dependents in view of a clear undertaking on her part to maintain the other dependents. This condition was stipulated by taking into account the relevant policy as circulated vide letter dated 4.9.2000 as well as the Rules. The indigent situation of the family is a paramount consideration and cannot be allowed to suffer. The petitioner is ready to part with the salary to the extent of 35% in favour of opposite party no. 3. In view of the above statement, the order of appointment dated 7.5.2018 may be acted upon forthwith so that the family is saved from financial consequences arising as a result of the death of bread winner, namely, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. Issue notice to opposite party no. 3. List alongwith service report in the first week of September, as fresh. In the meantime, opposite party no. 3 may file reply. The name of Sri Varun Pandey shall be shown as counsel for opposite parties when the case is next listed."

5. On being asked, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 also agreed to the aforesaid proposition. Even otherwise we are of the opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow gravely erred in deciding the Original Application of the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 by a common judgment without considering the validity of the orders impugned in the same, but now that an agreement has been arrived at before us, which appears to be equitable, otherwise, of course, the petitioner has the rights, we are of the opinion that the concerned opposite parties should now offer the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order.

6. As observed herein above we further direct that as and when the salary becomes due to the petitioner, 35 percent of it (in hand salary) would be transmitted to the bank account of opposite party no.3. To facilitate this exercise, opposite party no.3 shall provide all the required details of his bank account to opposite party no.2- Divisional Rail Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow, so that this arrangement continues till the petitioner is in service.

7. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated

27.05.2022 is accordingly set aside and the Original Application No. 332/00248/2018 along with Original Application No. 332/00546/2019 stand disposed of.

8. The writ petition is disposed of. (Manjive Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Arnima ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Advocate holding brief of Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner, wife of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was an employee in the Railways posted as Store Khalasi under SSE(W) line, Munnuwar Bagh, Lucknow, has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in Original Application No. 332/00248/2018 along with Original Application No. 332/00546/2019.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, who was working as Store Khalasi in Railways, died in harness on 23.03.2017. He had married twice. The opposite party no.3 is the son from the first wife and the petitioner is the second wife. It is not in dispute that late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava had divorced the earlier wife and his second marriage with the petitioner took place subsequently. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. However, it appears that after his death, a dispute occurred as to whether the petitioner or the opposite party no.3 should be given compassionate appointment. Two decisions were taken, both on the same date, that is on 07.05.2018. By one decision, contained Annexure No.6 to the petition, the claim of opposite party no.3 was declined on the ground that the legally wedded wife had a preferential right of being considered for appointment. Reference was made in this regard to a letter of the Railway Board dated 21.03.2018. By the other decision, contained as Annexure no.2 to the petition, it was decided to consider the claim of the petitioner subject to other conditions prescribed for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, this decision could not be acted upon as at that point of time the undertaking was not given by the petitioner, as stated by Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and the No-Objection Certificate from the other family members was not received. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that undertaking had been given, copy of which has been annexed with the petition. On being confronted, Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India could not deny this fact, rather he accepted it but he reiterated that the No-Objection Certificate by the other family members had not been given.

4. We fail to understand that in the facts of the case when the petitioner, the legally wedded wife of late Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, had a right to be considered for compassionate appointment and the claim of opposite party no.3 had been rejected, then what for the No-Objection Certificate was required. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the offer made by her before this Court, as recorded in the order dated

28.07.2022, meaning thereby the petitioner is ready to part with her salary to the extent of 35 percent in favour of opposite party no.3. The said order dated 28.07.2022 has not been acted upon as yet. The order dated 28.07.2022 reads as under :- "The claim of the petitioner for appointment has already been considered and a letter of appointment dated 7.5.2018 was issued in her favour. The letter dated 7.5.2018 stipulates a condition of furnishing 'NOC' from the other dependents. It is for want of NOC by the other dependents that the order dated 7.5.2018 is not being acted upon. The petitioner assailed the condition of furnishing NOC before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') and simultaneously the opposite party no. 3 also instituted Original Application No. 248 of 2018 assailing the order dated 7.5.2018 whereby the claim for his appointment was rejected. The Tribunal having clubbed both the cases, proceeded to pass the impugned order whereby a direction has been issued to the department for consideration of the rival claims, on the representations permitted to be made by both the parties. It is this judgement/order passed by the Tribunal which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that once the appointment of the petitioner was found favour with, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased, the order of appointment cannot be subjected to a further condition of furnishing NOC from other dependents in view of a clear undertaking on her part to maintain the other dependents. This condition was stipulated by taking into account the relevant policy as circulated vide letter dated 4.9.2000 as well as the Rules. The indigent situation of the family is a paramount consideration and cannot be allowed to suffer. The petitioner is ready to part with the salary to the extent of 35% in favour of opposite party no. 3. In view of the above statement, the order of appointment dated 7.5.2018 may be acted upon forthwith so that the family is saved from financial consequences arising as a result of the death of bread winner, namely, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. Issue notice to opposite party no. 3. List alongwith service report in the first week of September, as fresh. In the meantime, opposite party no. 3 may file reply. The name of Sri Varun Pandey shall be shown as counsel for opposite parties when the case is next listed."

5. On being asked, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 also agreed to the aforesaid proposition. Even otherwise we are of the opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow gravely erred in deciding the Original Application of the petitioner and the opposite party no.3 by a common judgment without considering the validity of the orders impugned in the same, but now that an agreement has been arrived at before us, which appears to be equitable, otherwise, of course, the petitioner has the rights, we are of the opinion that the concerned opposite parties should now offer the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order.

6. As observed herein above we further direct that as and when the salary becomes due to the petitioner, 35 percent of it (in hand salary) would be transmitted to the bank account of opposite party no.3. To facilitate this exercise, opposite party no.3 shall provide all the required details of his bank account to opposite party no.2- Divisional Rail Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow, so that this arrangement continues till the petitioner is in service.

7. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated

27.05.2022 is accordingly set aside and the Original Application No. 332/00248/2018 along with Original Application No. 332/00546/2019 stand disposed of.

8. The writ petition is disposed of. (Manjive Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Arnima ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench