Bom OA NO. 2259/2009 on 10 -02-2012 ORAL

  CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BOMBAY BENCH, CAMP AT NAGPUR

  ORIGINAL APPLICANTION NO. 2259/2009

   DATED THIS FRIDAY the 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHANDALE, MEMBER (A)

Smt. Malti wd/o Chandramani
Sontakke,
R/at C/o Sanjay Rangari,
Ward 12, Dayal Nagar,
Wardha 01.       ...      Applicant

( By Advocate Shri A.B. Bambal)

          VERSUS

1. The Union of India, through
The The General Manager,
Central Railway,
Mumbai CST.

2. The Divisional Railway
Manager, Central Railway,
Nagpur.   ...      Respondents

(By Advocate Shri R.G. Agarwal)

O R D E R (Oral)

Per: Smt. Leena Mehandale, Member (A)
This case is for Compassionate Appointment by the widow of the deceased Shri Chandramani Sontakke.  It is the contention of the respondents that she is getting the pension and also retiral benefits.  He also submits at Annexure R-II, an application from son of the deceased employee stating that he and his younger sister  both are being looked after not by their mother but by the grand-parents in a village.  The Respondents-Department has, therefore, decided that the widow of the deceased is not undergoing any grave hardship for which she can evoke the ground of compassionate appointment.  He pleads that the order at Annexure A-I dated 13.04.2009 need not be interfered with.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant points out to the judgment of Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chitra Veer Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006(2)99 decided on 08.03.2006, where the circumstances were that the applicant survived by his illiterate widow and adopted son and the widow as well as son have waited till the son attained majority after some years.  The respondents therein held that there was no liability and that the terminal benefits received along with recurring family pension were sufficient.  That order was challenged and quashed in the cited judgment mainly for the reason that the lapse of time and the decision to wait till the son attained the majority cannot be taken to mean that there was no hardship.

3. In the present matter the circumstances are different. Here the widow is not looking after the children of the deceased person and hence her liability is far less and than that has been considered by the respondents.  The learned counsel has cited yet another case of Nirmala Devi Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2002(2) (CAT) 17 decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal, it is decided on the question of Means Test and it was found therein that the Respondents-Department had simply considered that the applicant widow was getting family pension but had not gone into the details of indigent circumstances.  There again it was the case that the widow of the deceased also had the liability of her children.  Learned counsel for the applicant has cited third judgment of Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hiramam Pappu Wankhede Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006(2) 103 decided on 05.01.2006. In that judgment also the widow of the deceased servant had liability of the children which is a distinguishing factor in the present case as the widow herein is not looking after the children as her liability.

4. In the circumstances, the OA stands dismissed.  No costs.

(Smt. Leena Mehandale)
            Member (A)

dm.