(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Subhash Barot, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 19.7.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.427 of 2011 with M.A. No.439 of 2011 whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the petitioners herein are directed to conduct an inquiry through personnel department about the dependency of the respondent on his brother and consider his case for compassionate appointment treating it as a hard case within a period of three months. The Tribunal also clarified that the benefits of letter dated 5.1.2001 issued by the Railway Board should be extended to the respondent irrespective of the gap between the deaths of the respondent's brother Late Shri Kannan.
3. It is not disputed that the brother of the respondent, namely, Shri Kannan B. died, while in service on 13.2.2007. His wife also died in a very short span of 2 to 3 months i.e. on 15.5.2007. The respondent, being younger brother of the deceased Shri Kanan B. claimed compassionate appointment on compassionate ground.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the right accrued to the widow to claim appointment on compassionate ground, but since she did not claim appointment on compassionate ground, the younger brother of the deceased could not be provided compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the wife of the deceased could have claimed compassionate appointment and if she has not claimed compassionate appointment, the right comes to an end as per the policy of the Railways. In this regard, the petitioners have placed on record letter dated 30.1.2001 (at page 28 of the writ petition) which is extracted as under :-
5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the dependent brother/sister of the deceased could be offered compassionate appointment provided that either they are divorced or whose wife has expired.
This will not apply to the instant case as the wife was alive when Shri Kannan B. died.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the compassionate appointment could be claimed within a period of six months. While the right to claim compassionate appointment was available, the widow died and she could not claim appointment on compassionate ground. The other dependent, namely, the brother of the deceased was surviving and he being dependent could claim compassionate appointment within a period of six months. As a matter of fact, he claimed appointment on compassionate ground. In such a situation, in our opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error in directing the respondents to ignore the gaps between the death of the deceased and his wife and consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground and the needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
7. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Further, we do not find any illegality in condoning the delay in filing Original Application by the Tribunal simultaneously while allowing the Original Application. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed summarily.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Savariya Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.]