No compassionate ground job for second wife’s child: HC

Nagpur: In a landmark verdict, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has ruled that second wife’s child cannot seek a government job on compassionate grounds. Mumbai-based general manager of Central Railway knocked the judiciary’s doors challenging Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) judgment that directed it to reconsider Washim-based man’s appointment.

“No material has been pointed out on respondent’s behalf that entitles second wife’s son to employment on compassionate ground. There is nothing to show that a son/daughter of second wife would be entitled to claim appointment on such ground. According to the petitioners, and rightly so, since second marriage was not permissible, it wasn’t possible for them to give appointment to second wife’s son,” a division bench comprising Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Anant Badar held.

Quashing CAT’s order that directed railways to reconsider Manohar’s (name changed) application for the job, the court flayed him for frustrating very definition of compassionate appointment by realizing the need a decade after his father’s death. “The object of compassionate appointment is to provide succour to an employee who dies in harness. With lapse of more than ten years… the object of granting compassionate appointment stands frustrated,” the judges observed.

When Manohar’s father expired on February 6, 1999, he was a minor. He became major on October 22, 2003, but it took him eight years after that to apply for the job in his father’s place. Railways rejected his application on September 26, 2011. He challenged it before the CAT that directed the railways to reconsider his case as per rules.

The railways challenged this verdict in court through counsel Nitin Lambat. He contended there was nothing in the railway board’s regulations providing employment on compassionate ground to second wife’s son/daughter. Manohar argued that he became aware of his right to seek compassionate appointment only in 2010 and he immediately applied after that.

Justice Naik and Justice Badar stated that the tribunal was not justified in ruling in Manohar’s favour. Even assuming that the Railway Board’s stand is revised, still he can’t claim employment on its basis. “Admittedly, his father had two wives, and he is second wife’s son. We also find that there is inordinate delay in filing application for compassionate appointment. His father expired in 1999, he attained the age of majority on October 22, 2003, and the application for appointment was filed in the year 2010,” the court said while allowing railway’s petition.

Read at: Times of India