Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mansha Devi Vs Vinod Kumar Maurya PDF

    Uploaded by

    R K Umang
    27 views80 pages

    Original Title

    Mansha Devi vs Vinod Kumar Maurya .pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    27 views80 pages

    Mansha Devi Vs Vinod Kumar Maurya PDF

    Uploaded by

    R K Umang

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 80
    ‘Twas fallen ill while he was on duty by the brain] hemorthage and the father of the applicant got paralyzed and at that time he was doing his duty at Gahmar station unit No. 7 (Buxar division) and Raj Kumar Rai (Key Man), Lal Mohar (Chaukidar) and Chhotak Yadav (Trolley Man) who were also Railway Employee at the same unit they all were taken away the father of the applicant to the hospital and while they | ‘were on the way the father of the applicant died. the father of the applicant was sole bread earner of his | family and after sad demise of her father the entire family came at the verge of starvation and suffering from semi hard days the applicant has one sister namely Mamta and her mother name is Sharda Devi the applicant sister namely Mamta is not interested for compassionate ground appointment on the sad demise of her father namely Yogendra Ram and the mother of the applicant namely Sharda is also not interested for doing the job on the basis of compassionate ground appointment, the mother of applicant namely Sharda Devi is living | with the applicant and it is also relevant to mention ‘here that the marriage was solemnized with Sunil | Kumar Gautam and her father was also living with | a them after the death of the father mother of the applicant | Sharda Devi submitted application before respondent no, 2 for considering the compassionate ground appointment of her elder daughter Mansha Devi. ‘the family background of the present applicant is not very good and the applicant is not financially solved and she has also liability of two daughters and her husband is also unemployed the respondent authority has not pald proper eat upon | the application filed by the mother of the applicant then she again submitted application before the respondent no, 2 for considering the compassionate ground appointment of the applicant and same is being forwarded to Additional Divisional Engineer and Additional Divisional Engineer Buxar for consideration ‘that the respondent No, 2 vide order dated 01.12.2021 | rejected the application filed by the mother of the applicant by stating therein that “the employee had less than a year of service left, ‘There is no liability of minor on or unmarried daughter, Therg is no justification for considering compassionate appointment to a married duughter which is to be considered only rare and exceptional cases de ‘he aoresaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble | Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Bench Allahabad by Original Application No. 486 of 2022 (Smt, Mansha Devi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others) and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the order dated 1.12.2021 and remitted the matter back to the respondent no.2 by considering the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another in Writ- CNo.60881 of 2015 the applicant submitted the representation along with the aforesaid order before respondent no.2 on 07.06.2022 the respondent n0.2 has not considered view given by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and in a eryptic and vague manner rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 06.07.2022 Hence present original application. (Vinod Kumar Maurya) Advocates Ch. No. 41, ‘Chamber No.41 H.C. Allahabad Mob no. 9453090575 Pe BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT ALLAHABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 4 63 OF 2022 (Under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumar Gautam R/o 39, Ward No, 02, Dildar Nagar, Gaon Dildar Nagar, District Gazipur U.P. 232326 Applicant. Versus Union of India through General Manager East Central Railway, New Delhi Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) East Central Railway Danapur. Genevoll Divisional Railway, Manager (Personnel) East Central Railway Hajipur Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur—_} Senior Assistant Divisional Engineer Eust Central Railway. Assistant Divisional Engineer East Cen ral Railway, Buxar Senior Section Engineer Railway East Central Railway Buxar. Respondents. ‘The Hon’ble Chairman and his companion members of the Hon'ble Tribunal. The humble petition on behalf.of the above named applicant most respectfully showeth as under, DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION.- The present original application is being filed for quashing the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by Respondent No, 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal ‘The applicant declares that the subject inatter of the original application the redressal of which is sought by the applicant is within the jurisdi ion of this Tribunal. Limitation: The applicant further declares that the application is within limitation period as prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Facts of the Cas 4. ‘That the brief faets of the case are that the applicant is younger daughter of her father namely Yogendra Ram and the applicant is also passed High School in the year 2007, Intermediate 2009 from the U.P. Board Uttar Pradesh and after that she has completed het graduation frora V.B.S. Purvanchal University Jaunpur in the year 2012, For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court the copies of the mark-sheet high school, intermediate, graduation are collectively baing filed herewith marked as Annexure No. That the father of the applicant namely Yogendra Ram was working a3 4 post trackman in the office of Senior Section Engineer Bast Central Railway Buxar as permanent employee and he was receiving his salary regularly. A copy of the Identity card is being filed herewith marked as Annexure No. 2 Ff 4.3 That no departmental proceedings was ever initiated or is pending against the father of the applicant and he was doing his job very honestly. That it is relevant to mention here that all of sudden on 09.05.2019 the father of the applicant was fallen ill while he was on duty by the brain hemorrhage and the father of the applicant got paralyzed and at that time he was doing his duty at Gahmar station unit No. 7 (Buxar division) and Raj Kumar Rai (Key Man), Lal Mohar (Chaukidar) and Chhotak Yadev (Trolley Man) who were also Railway Employee at the same Unit they all were taken away the father of the applicant to the hospital and while they were on the way the father of the applicant died. For the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court a true copy of death certificate dated 09.05.2019 is being filed herewith marked as Annexure No.4 That the father of the applicant was sole bread eamer of his family and after sad demise of her father the entire family came at the verge of starvation and suffering from semi hard days That the applicant has one sister namely Mamta and her mother name is Sharda Devi, For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court the copies of the Service Book and family register are collectively being filed herewith marked as Annexure No. 4.5~ 4.7 That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant sister namely Mamta is not interested for compassionate ground appointment on the sad demise of her father namely Yogendra Ram and the mother of the applicant namely Sharda is also not interested for doing the job on the basis of compassionate ground appointment, For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of the affidavit of Mamta Devi and application of Sharda Devi (mother of the applicant) are collectively being filed before respondent no. 2 is being ‘annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. & ‘That the father of the applicant was fallen ill from brain hemorthage and which situation is beyond his control. ‘That it is relevant to mention here that the mother of applicant namely Sharda Devi is living with the applicant and it is also relevant to mention here that the marriage was solemnized with Sunil Kumar Gautam and her father was also living with them. For the kind perusal of this Hon*ble Court the copy of the affidavit filed by the father of the applicant before competent officer is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3. ‘That afier the death of the father mother of the applicant Sharda Devi submitted application before respondent no, 2 for considering the compassionate ground appointment of her elder daughter Mansha Devi, For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of the application is being filed annexed herewith marked as Annexure no. 3 ‘That the family background of the present applicant is not very good and the applicant is not financially solved and she has also liability of two daughters and her husband is also unemployed ‘That the respondent authority has not paid proper eat upon the application filed by the mother of the applicant then she again’ submitted application before the respondent no, 2 for considering the compassionate ground appointment of the applicant and same is being forwarded to Additional Divisional Engineer and Additional Divisional Engineer Buxar for consideration. That it is relevant to mention here that the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 01.12.2021 rejected the application filed by the mother of the applicant by stating therein that “the employee had less than a year of service left. There is no- liability of minor son or unmarried daughter. There is no- justification for considering. compassionate appointment to a married daughter Which is to be considered only rare and exceptional cases, For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a true copy of order dated 01.12.2021 is being filed herewith annexed and marked as Annexure No& Je 4.14 That the aoresaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Bench Allahabad bby Original Application No, 486 of 2022 (Smt. Mansha Devi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others) and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to quash the order dated 112.2021 and remitted the matter back to the respondent no.2 by considering the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature ot Allahabad in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another in Weit-C No.60881 of 2015. For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a copy of the judgment dated 27.05.2022 passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.#2 ‘That, the applicant submitted the representation along with the aforesaid order before respondent no.2 on 07.06.2022. For the ‘kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a copy of the representation dated 07.06.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.A§, ‘That, the respondent no.2 has not considered view given by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and in a cryptic and vague manner rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 06.07.2022. For the kind perusal of this Hon’ ble Court a copy of the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by respondent no.2 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure Not 4.17 That, the respondent no.2 has not considered the law laid down in the case of Smt, Vimla Srivastava vs. State of UP. ‘and Another and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble iplemented in Supreme Court Nagpal’s case which is not the case of applicant. ‘That the aforesaid order is wholly illegal and unjust and not sustainable in the eye of law. That the aforesaid order is gross violation of article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India. That the impugned order has no legs. ‘That incorporating in master circular no, 16 by the Railways envisage son/daughter/widow/widower of the employees are cligible to be appointed on compassionate ground in ‘circumstances in which such appointments a permissible is nothing but dehorse of the le of the natural justice and also gross violation of article 14, 16 and 21 by purposely excluding a married daughter from a family member. ‘That married daughter is also the member of the family and discriminating in any manner whatsoever scandalizes administration of justice. ‘That the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of ‘Manju Shrivastava vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ 10928 ee of 2020 held that married daughter could be obtained job in lace of her father in the dying in harness rule. For the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court @ true copy of Writ No, 10928 of 2020 is being filed herewith marked as Annexure No.1, fide arbitrary and 4.24 That the act of respondent authority is mala not sustainable in the eye of law 5S. Grounds for relief with legal provisions: 5.1 Because, no departmental proceedings was ever initiated or is pending against the father of the applicant and he was doing his job very honestly. relevant to mention here that all of sudden fallen ill while $2 Because, i he was on duty the blood hemorrhage the father of the applicant got paralyzed and after that he obtained medical treatment from railway ‘medical hospital Buxar: 5.3 Because, after discharge from the aforesaid railway hospital the father of the applicant has taken medicines and precautions due to the advice of aforesaid railway medical hospital but the condition of the father of the applicant was worsen day by day and ultimately he was died on 09.05.2019 54 Because, it is relevant to mention here that after suffering from the aforesaid illness the father of the applicant became total permanent physical disablement and after that the father of the applicant was died ‘on 09.05.2019. 3S 36 5.7 5.10 SAN 3 Because, the father of the applicant was sole bread earner of his family and after sad demise of her father the entire family came at the verge of starvation and suffering from semi hard days. Because, the applicant has one sister namely Mamta and her mother name is Sharda Devi, Because, It is relevant to mention here that the applicant sister namely Mamta is not interested for compassionate ground appointment on the sad demise of her father namely Yogendra Ram and the mother of the applicant namely Sharda is also not interested for doing the job om the basis of compassionate ground appointment. Because, The father of the applicant was fallen ill from brain hemorthage and which situation is beyond his control. Because, It is relevant to mention here that the mother of applicant namely Sharda Devi is living with the applicant and it is also relevant to mention here that the marriage was solemnized with Sunil Kumar Gautam and her father was living with them, Because, After the death of the father mother of the applicant Sharda Devi submitted application betore respondent no, 2 for considering the compassionate ground appointment of her elder daughter Mansha Devi. Because, the respondent authority has not paid proper eat upon the application filed by the mother of the applicant then she again submitted application before the respondent no. 2 for considering the compassionate ground appointment of the applicant and same is being \a forwarded to Additional Divisional Engineer and Additional Divisional Engineer Buxar for consideration. Because, it is relevant to mention here that the respondent No. 2 vide onder dated 06.07.2022 rejected the application filed by the applicant by stating therein that “the employee had less than a year of service left, There is no liability of minor son or unmarried daughter, There is ‘no justification for considering compassionate appointment to a married daughter whieh is to be considered only rare and exceptional Because, The aforesaid order is wholly illegal and unjust and not sustainable in the eye of law. Because, the aforesaid order is gross violation of article 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India Because, the impugned order has no legs. Because, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Manju Shrivastava vs. State of U.P, and others in Writ 10928 of 2020 held that married daughter could be obtained job in place of her father in the dying in bamess rule. Because, The act of respondent authority is mala-fide arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law, Because, the act of the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the provisions of law in addition to the violation of fundamental rights granted under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India. of the remedies exhausted:- ‘The applicant dectares that he has availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules. with any other cout Matter not previously filed or pen The applicant further declares that he had not previously filed any application, writ petition or suit regarding the matter, in respect of which this application has been made, before any court or any other authority or any other bench of the tribunal nor any such application \writ petition or suit is pending. Relief sought for:~ In view of the facts mentioned in paragraphs above, the applicant prays for the following relief: (A) To issue an order or direction for quashing the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the respondent No.2. (B) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the applicant for any suitable post at any suitable place in Eastem Central Railway, (C) To issue order or direction for setting aside master circular No. 16 issued by Indian Railways to the extent the para II which excludes @ married daughter from employment as a family member under relevant dying in harness rules, (D) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (B) To award cost to the applicant. terim relief if'any prayed for ‘That during the pendency of the original application, the respondents may be directed to issue provisional appointment letter to the applicant and permit his joining as any suitable post at any suitable place in Eastern Central Railway on the ground of compassionate ‘ground appointment: This original application is being processed through Shri, Vinod ‘Kumar Maurya Advocate, application fee: (A) Number of Indian postal order. (B) Name of issuing post office. 1 Date of issue of postal order. (D) Post Office at which payable, List of enclosures: ‘As mentioned in the index. Affidavit Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumar Gautam, Dio late Yogendra Ram, R/o 39, Ward No, 02, Dildar Nagar, Gaon Dildar Nagar, District Gazipur ULP. 232326, 1, the deponent (the father of the applicant) above named do hereby verify that ‘the -—contents--sof_—_ paragraph \F is true to my personal knowledge and those of paragraph Noth. $:2,, ft £6) Set ys PI UA), Seed aithe ld gia ae Ge ease this original application are based on record and those of paragraph Non clty JOUEEIG eceie nee ieee ~4.4$..1Gmmn. are based on information received and those of Are ‘paragraph No. based on legal advise, which all I believe to be true and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed, So help Me God. (Deponent) Date [:l6-22 He led (Vinod Kumar Maurya) Advocates Chamber No.41 H.C. Allahabad Mob no. 9453090575, ‘Subs: Compliance of the order dated 27.05.2022 passed in ‘OA No. 486/2022 by Hon'ble CAT/Allahabad. (Smt. Manshi Devi-VS- UOI & others) Facts of the Case. Smt, Sharda Devi Wo Lote Yogendra Ram, Ex. Trackman under SSE/P.Way/BXR has claimed for appointment of her daughter Smt. mansha Devi on compassionate ground vide her representation dated 19.08.2020 It is stated that Late yogendra Ram, Ex Trackman under SSE(P-Way)/BXR expired on 09.05.2019. while in Railway service, On receipt of application from the widow for appointment of er married daughter on compassionate ground, the matter was enquired into by deputing a welfare inspector. As per enclosures submitted with the enquiry report, it transpires that the ex-employee expired on (09,05,2019 and the applicant Smt. Mansha Devi the daughter of the deceased got married for mare than 10 years prior to her father’s ‘demise. As such she was not dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death. “That case was sent to head Quarter for decision of the Competent ‘Authority i.e, general Manager. The competent Authority did not find the case fit for compassionate appointment & passed the following orders. “The employee had Less than a year service left There is no liability of minor son or unmarried daughter. There is no justification for considering compassionate appointment to a married daughter which 9 js to be considering compassionate appointment to a married daughter hich is to be considered only in rare and exceptional cases” That Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.05. 2022 directed respondents “ it is made’ clear that it is incumbent upon the married daughter to prove her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for her case to be considered for compassionate appointment Accordingly this original application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant that she shall submit her application for consideration of compassionate appointment annexing the documents to prove her dependency a the time of death of her father in 2019 with 4 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, The respondents shall consider the same as and when the meeting for consideration of case for compassionate appointment: is held in future and the outcome of the said meeting shall be ‘communicated to the applicant within two weeks. ‘The claim of the applicant has been examined in light of the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal alongwith representation of the applicant dated 06.06.2022 and observes that her claim is not sustainable on following grounds. ¢ She has not submitted any documents to prove her dependence ‘over the ec-employee for which she has been directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. © That late Yogendra Ram expired on 09.05.2019 and at the material time Smt. Mansha Devi was a married daughter who can not be said the bread winner of the family. © The excemployee had less than a year of service left. There is ho liability of minor son of unmarred daughter. The widow Smt. Sharda Devi also expired on 17.02.2022. All the settlement dues were paid to the widow of the ¢x- employee and the widow was also drawing family pension during her lifetime which was enough amount for her livelihood [As per Hon'ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in Nagpal’s Case the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is (0 enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the caring member and not to give an appointment to the family member, The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial erisis which it faces at the time of death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In view of the above facts and circumstances the claim of te applicant is not tenable, Accordingly, her representation dated 06.06.2022 is disposed of and the order of the Hon’ ble Tribunal stands complied. sail Ashok Kumar Divisional Railway Manager (P) East Contral Railway /Danapur ‘True Copy Subs- Compliance of the order dated 27 0% 202, passe OA No.486/2022 by Hon'ble CAT/Alahabad {Smt Mansha Devi-V8-U0I @ others) 49:06'2020 tin state cH 05 2099, vies ointment of her marr ed into by deputing @ f transpires isha Devi. Ram, &xTrackman under SSE(P WayWBAR expired on service. On receipt of application from the widow for app daughter on compassionate ground, the matter was enquired \Weifare Inspector. As per enclosures submitted with the enquiry r°P0": | that the ex-employee expired on 09.05.2019 and the applicant Smt. Man the daughter of the deceased gol married for mare than 10 years prior to her father's emize: As such she was not dependent on the deceased employes decision of the Competent Authonty 1° id not find the caseifit for compassionate at the time of his bias fo Head Quarter for ae ie “The Competent Authority sopointment & passed ihe fallowing ders “The employee had less than a year service tel ‘There 1s no liability of min re is no justification for considering compassionais unmarried daughter The ww rare and appointment to a married daughter which is to be considered only exceptional cases.” 3 The Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated — 27 09.202: made clear thet itis incumbent pon the married daughter to prove her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for her case to be considered for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, this original application is disposed of with & direction to the applicant that she shall submit her application for consideration of 2 directed respondents ~~ tS of fame: applicant has ben examined in light of the order ‘representation of the applicant dated — 06.06.2022 4° not sustainable on following grounds: ‘sThe excemployee had less than a year of service leh There i 20/35 ow Smt. Sharda Devi aise ‘son or unmarried daughter. The wid 47.02.2022. ‘Allthe settlement dues were paid to the widow of the ex-employee and tne Wot was also drawing family pension during her Iifetime, which was enough amount {for her livelinood. Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement © Neagpal’s tment is to enable the gn case, the whole object which ean be excercised at any ume In {UNIS The ici crisis which it faces at t= = ionate appointment can not be cismss 39S a vested righ enable the family to get over the fina of the sole bread winner, the compassi offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over In view of the above facts and circumstances the aim of the applicant 9° tenable. Accordingly, her representation dated — 06.06.2022 is disposed of and *Me order of the iton’ble Tnibunal stends complied lew ts a (Ashok Kure) Divisional Raitway Manager (P), FORMS NO. 12 (Gee Rule 67) IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE ‘TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD ALLAHABAD BENCH OAIRAICIPTINO in nnsnymmiemrnnce OF ‘ee i peponen() ADDL | had. Ae cote rarer cleus so) Sul Hutoe pine ———- Respondent 00 wn - inthe above applietonlptiiones otenbypcin adn Stt Vind Maud pgfan LOPS] Fro AMR Rt [amnesia Ae eaten lead nad ft 1 tt in the above appizationpaion se evry nat cng inept of Cat Pein a Rare SSS AE af ducoment ener itocomprmte and tod an OSE} hertrom and applications fortum payable ones ine al proceeding i ce: Alla het-d [Prog pam Date: [9-002 . accepted” = ‘ 5 Vined cel Daeg D on eee Blvetie f Bscuted in my presence =e poe 19> to 22— ‘Signature with date Mab: Mo- 94. 32905 75— ‘hame and Designation) : % i (ame ofthe Advocate) 0 Namne and Adavess ofthe i i parece gsr + i I erat ercalonta vn when py uscquailwi he gage of t ‘Vekalatmana os lid or verte @ | © + iaveundemtogd the same, : ! 1 . ‘Signatuve wih date‘ =, (Name and Designation) SENT ORO sore os77,9200 4004 ERA AADHAAR, MERI PEHACHAN | BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT ALLAHABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATIONNO. OF 2022 (Under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Manisha Devi Wio Sunil Kumar Gautam seveeeseopplicant. Union of India and others Respondents. COMPILATION NO. I Particulars of papers The copies of the mark- sheet high _ school, | intermediate, graduation A copy of the Identity card. ‘A true copy of death | 09.05.2019 certificate, The copies of the Service Book and family register. ‘A true copy of the affidavit of Mamta Devi and application of Sharda Devi (mother of the applicant) are collectively The copy of the affidavit filed by the father of the applicant before competent officer. A tue copy of the | application, A true copy of order: 01.12.2021 A. copy of the judgment dated passed by Hon'ble |Central Administrative nal Allahabad. 27.05.2022 A copy ofthe representation 07.06.2022 I9- oy) A copy of the order dated passed by respondent no.2 06.07.2022 1 go 6 A true copy of Writ No. 10928 of 2020 13 Ga- 754 (Vinod ula Advocates Ch. No. 41, Chamber No.4I H.C. Allahabad ‘Mob no. 9453090575 7 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT ALLAHABAD ie ANNEXURE NO. (2-| IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. OF 2022 (Under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumar Gautam Versus Union of India and others High School arora ties (CER} | eaegaee Brera | FF (ere ‘SECOND. ers PATE B (ars ined: by ie cola 8 pase sabes 5 at Tatar an], Rerlerams wemtnerg te 2s |= a [arc ns rnd Sh 400°} “92}| 400} = 44 HIND!” ENGLISH HOME SCIENCI ei a89| S44] i A 4158 SCIENCE SOCIAL SEIENGE. DRAWING: 4 oe Dewan ble 2) Stas ene tid Wana (Fa npr yet ee peal ci cls ‘STHJUNE 2007 (vines Adland, Uttar Pradesh Indi | = Sauna SSENRDEENETEES i (Roll Nou) 4822751 Intermediate Examination - 2009 art fe ofa Soy at acorng tothe Bards ect KM MANSHA KUMAR! csreran afl (son/daughter of Ms.) SHARADA DEV! G Mficand Mr) JOGINDRARAM 4 earkew 2009 oro fw Pet Revere st 8 = 1¢ following detail: > ins pused Lntermediat Examigaton hel in Mar ri-2009 according 0 the cra fist (Name of the opted subjects 3. HISTORY 4. HINDT 6. SPORTS & PHY ED! 4, ECONOMICS fi inf (Division) seconD | tureratira (Schoo! / Centre) -B G BV 10(ZOHADA BISHUNPURA GHAZIPUR mm (Rep/Pvt.) Fara (Date) Led Tinie of (hed sor FR Smt Prabha Tp env Briar (Certificate No.) #4 5425202 REGU 24012070812 rari (Place) ¥aMeTare (Altahabad) ste, Diino i a pci et i bet ede “pe ih no” pay Instracons ce ovael a \V.B.S, Purvanichal University, jung Wi STATENENT OF MARKS. B.A. THIRD YEAR » 2012 Regular same MANSHA KUMARI Roll No, R121050190007 others | Husband's Name = JOGINDRA RAM spotters Name: SHARADA DEV! Enrolment No. PU0Q71982 sume et Cotlegtnetution: RAI KISHORE SINGH DEGREE COLLEGE, BARUME JAMANIYA, CHAZEUR | Bl ca S| susvecTs THEGRY GaReHEALIVNA) sus lark eI A el es oy Te ee | che SIENCE cars oser| onan cule oon a Commpulcry Paper: Reshtra Gaurav 37no ~—PAS. evinanmenelsciney sore PAY ae eee Toul; aes) PASS vision: SECOND Marks Obtained upto Second Year Grand Total = EIGHT HUNDRED THIRST ITNT HIB: sore compisoy Paper (Marks Obtained wl pb aed in fot marks but neces S FANS mss cate. 31/08/2012 | ee CHECKED BY GONTROLLER Os f° aahaaw, +4 191950030090509 | 657194001375, | spatter rer ara FAR © beerdrareur ett fh ote phe ga aT career art each rt ett rent soferercereats mm Pere Hichid aut fret ree - sop faa Tr AY EE a ae gE erate a oer 1050 (ear Fm a = =i Coates tre ae) so 1067 ge etn tween rt A eh ees ae [ere ren rare TACT A, 38, ore MP TH PRATT ST TET ce matte & wrens Tem Nearer Gee oe Oe REVENUES= z Peat: 04/06/2019 : | eo) aay | fet ozvos2e1e | ae aecine Reet re ere Peek efor fe eee te es Aen cra ech ERE lupe nec eel er ne fener ws Hire cero Re | 31 AUG CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT ANNEXURE NO. (3 ) IN ‘ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Under Section 19 of the Cerjtral Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumar Gautam ++ Applicant, Versus ..Respondents, Union of India and others Om eer ® pon — ; 08.08.1960 ecee be DOK — : 07.02.2009 - fqn elon gn et Nera Dept i pce | yP-WAN/BXR | tddress : Vil- Bitelas Naeger i 33 eos THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT ANNEXURE NO. (4-) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. OF 2022 (Under Section 19 of the Cerltral Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumer Gautam | Versus Union of India and others | | Sat Tes TAT my FEST ATA, none 127 ese fe me are er 000% FeO AAT TT free ey TAT TT (Death Caftificate) cp eartiee Rear arate Fa then eT TT Merah tat etree) Reet AC TE AT ard Srp ros ae verre afer ten as s91950080012690 sarees ete ‘957198001277 Neve oh ter HO GENDRA RAM Frau Name of Faterustand x OTT AMUNA RAM arr ‘Name of Mather wir ame of Wits “pram ACHIDEY! - hrf rere) SHARADA DEV! | ca | = Sex Malo 0, errr, Rete, FR Spohn, ere Tu00, DEDARN TSADN, Didar Nogar, DILDAR NAGEM. Lee Sew, Ghowbor ae Date of Beats ease aera ae ie 0, Roernat,PeeTE AT, eileen i FRegltation No past 0872018 Rogisrtion Date om aadrors TRIVENT Set, PRASAD fic x Fer pare TA Sees anes ovat amifreT BHAKSE ETAT \ emers ue 79, ST A tet rer en fe Pe BT 1 roti eh erp Sedan ST brs nanny eee eR pith ipstecuateteottenerornoepent eA -pontyTheOTUN go DENT y uy 7 te FAME ‘TION oes HS Sa Seta oes] 80a ae Hb os Fate of Foye anno eeninoe ORE CTA NTS 2 OT ah Prorat ero rer roe “i SS pois 2S Sau SSH UTTAR PRADESH “STORE UCT - BT 283649 % =r storercage Cnt REST 4 mprter Berton Ger SSSR o Wer are Remgray Ste cern oemeare XS ie surety eer Store| id a ard Ses, sro oct Se coe oT andes . wercmr & omar TAREE | A Texas: ce pao Hat afore searer sears vk J ANE St smeredk sehen r, {/ootasr cor sroah es CET pet crested archer ele Teh Roeser nS Sau WeM UTTAR P. ore 2a ae Sort |g Segal wen SAR SST fore SET RR zea} easreh & aero BT 283650 Ya, TER ser anh ofan, sd ne tearm) Reva — argerar ab sree) oe Regia @ vie AI ABITY, caer Petey eer & RHR oa to ah HL 2 A AS WR BONS /Lar w/a S aes ree 4 Ba data ert & NT egy Tet ES wear Sea fhe frrie-onosz0rg a et rat at, sae) PRAT A gare fh are & 18 onfiles Ref eee #1 A ET ata AR of GR sare een nr aoa mre mae OTL At GP 8.) gPiet am feo fen 81 a8 wl eh A A ere STA aE ote gai te are wath oh, Fecha eer Rett ar eh 8, He eT TT aetorae @ ae ar & faa HAY we ft @) AS GA A aT aT Free) tern ater res TH fP-0s.07.1982 8 re: sors ore Bf A aT BT as AA ae) A et aT AT ah errr @ ome me tp 28 a apr |g Fe A te STE ET | A _ Section EM heer (Pave See alway, But anir-gonosifno /$a wet /aeR f noe : t seat | ari RRR Tia, pe ope oie Rare a Ferer—araftgy (SoHo) Fet—232826 cf BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINI AT ALLAHABAD MINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH ANNEXURE NO. (Jo) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022 (Under Section 19 of the Cerjtral Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumar Gautam . Applicant. Versus dents. Union of India and others Basia we Open Court Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 27 day of May, 2022 Hon’ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J) Original Application No. 330/00486/2022 Mansha Devi W/o Sunil Kumar Gautam ‘Age 29 years near about’ R/o 39, Ward No. 02, Dildar Nagar, Gaon Dildar Nagar, District Gazipur U.P. 232326 . APPLICANT By Advocate(s): Shri Vinod Kumar Maurya Versu: Union of India through General Manager East Central Railway, New Delhi. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) East Central Railway Danapur. Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur. Senior Assistant Divisional Engineer East Central Railway. ‘Assistant Divisional Engineer East Central Railway, Buxar. oN e “Sehidy Section Engineer Railway East Central Railway Buxar, A@\ .RESPONDENTS By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan S4- } Dying in Hamess Rules on 19.08.2020. The said application was considered by the respondents and got rejected by way of an order dated 01.12.2021 which is impugned at page 41 of the present original application, The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows: “ The employee had less than a year of service left. There is no Fiability of minor son or unmarried daughter. There is no justification for considering compassionate appointment to a married daughter which is to be considered only in rare and exceptional cases.” 4. Leamed counsel for the respondents, vehemently opposing the ©.A., submits that the case of the applicant has been duly considered by the respondents under the relevant married daughter of the deceased employee, nate appointment as it is only in rare and rules and the applicant, being the is not cligible to be ‘considered for compassio exceptional cases that the compassionate appointment is allowed. ‘Accordingly, the case of the applicant has been rejected after due consideration by the respondents under the established rules governing Heard Ieamed counsel for the parties and perused the documents 6. It is not denied that the applicant is the married daughter of the deceased employee who died in hamess. I feel that the case of the ——_— x Present original application is covered by the judgment dated 04.12.2015 rendered ee by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Sint. Vimta a rivastava vs State of U.P, and Another in Writ C No. 60881 of 2015 which held: “In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression “family” in Rule 2 (¢) of the Dying-in- Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. We, accordingly, strike down the word ‘unmarried’ in Rule 2 (c) (tit) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules.” 7. It is seen that the married daughter cannot be excluded from consideration of compassionate appointment. However, in the light of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, itis made clear that it is incumbent upon the married daughter to prove her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for her _casgi9.be considered for compassionate appointment ‘Accordingly, this Origiria Application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant that {the she'shall submit her application for consideration of compassionate appointment annexing the documents to prove her dependency at the time of death of her father in 2019 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. The respondents shall consider the same as and when the meeting for consideration of cases for 14, We A AT A wearer wy er mre eer enh we Fea rh gear ofA) sie ta) mrfia_ ether SHARIR, FATAT_ AE FOTATAT_GAT_Original_Application Ne: 330/00486/2022 ( Mansha Devi Vs, Union of India and_others sift fear ug {% sif2HF & Original Application No. 330/00486/2022 { Mansha Deve Union Gt indi and cthen) we Tey Tae aN wet & qeara Pres citer orf frar— it is seen that the mi consideration of the compassi the al ney at the time of to be considered 1s5i f all submit her applica le ointment annexing the docu Ss tims death of her the of re cet is compassionate appointment is held in said lt be ci theres area aia: afar oft # arefat & f& Original Application No. 330/00486/2022 ( Mansha Devi Vs. Union of India and others) 4 oft ander fae 27.05.2022 aT argos affect ae srraat Fert arn etl fora sre @ wer are ara | feie—opo6.2022 watt Gren a) ett ate eae ates, ya wo anteaea, aren wear eat wet 39 TS 0 02, Fray srr ata FReTgTR TE ‘foren aTsHER loro —8354082527 are “4— Original Application No. 330/00486/2022_siT@xr fei 27.05.2022 ot pransfa | 2-H wer eae HY TATA | s-aite aan & wearer oa BY erate acon /area FATT a BL Bre GAY | a is to be considering compassionate appointment to a married daughter ‘Which is to be considered only in rare and exceptional cases” ‘That Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated 27.05.2022 directed respondents “ it is made clear that it is incumbent upon the married daughter to prove her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for her case to be considered for compassionate appointment Accordingly, this original application is disposed of with a direction to the applicant that she shall submit her application for consideration of compassionate appointment annexing the documents to prove her dependency atthe time of death of her father in 2019 with a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of tis ‘order. The respondents shall consider the same as and when the meeting for consideration of case for compassionate appoiniment is held in fitore and the outcome of the ssid meeting shall be ‘communigated to the applicant within two weeks. ‘The claim of the applicant has been examined in light of the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal alongwith representation of the applicant dated 06.06.2022 and observes that her claim is not sustainable on following grounds. She has not submitted any documents to prove her dependence over the ec-employee for which she has been directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. That late Yogendra Ram expired on 09.05.2019 and at the material time Smt, Mansha Devi was a married daughter who can not be said the bread winner of the family. ‘Sub:- ae Of the o1der dated 27.6% 202, passer 0 A No 48812022 by Hon'ble CAT /Atahabad (Sti. Mansha Devi-V8-UOI & others) sdeher representation dates - 19-082020 If | mm, ExTrackman under SSE(P.Way)/BAR expired oF service. On receipt of application from the widow for appointment of TS! roar! daiighiit on, compeesionate ground, the matter wes enquired imo OY dentine © Wellare Inspetior As per enclosures submited wih the cnquiny report Sane that the ecemployes expired on 09.05.2019 and the applicant ‘Smt. Mansha Devi. the ‘ofthe deceased got married for mare than 10 Years ele ee ea aeee ‘not dependant on the deceased employee at the time of his jecision of the Campetent Authosty ie for compassionate 99.05.2019, while srtrment & passed the foiwing ose" of minor som 9 eppoi “The employee had Jess than a year service ' 41 There is ne liability for considering compassion” are and There is no justificatior unmarried daughter. ler which is to be considered only in 1 appointment to a marred daught exceptional cases.” 2 The Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order dated - 27 05,2022 directed respondents: — itis made olear thet itis inoumbent upon the married daughter to prove her dependency at the time of the death of the deceased employee for her case {0 be considered for compessionate appointment. Accordingly, (his original application is disposed of with & direction to the ea that ee shall submit her application for consideration of “the family. : * The ee ex-employee had less than a year of service tet There ss 79 8S

    You might also like