IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN MONDAY, THE13H DAY OF OCTOBER201421ST ASWINA, 1936 OP (CAT).No. 134 of 2014 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN O.A.No.1206/2013 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED2407-2014 PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY PARK TOWN , CHENNAI-600003.
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS, PARK TOWN CHENNAI-600003.
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678001 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678001 5. THE SECRETARY (ESTABLISHMENT) RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI-110001. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SMT.NITHYA MARTIN CHRISTIANE, AGED32YEARS D/O.LATE A JAYARAJ, 'VASANTHAM', MANJAKKAD SHORANUR, PALAKKAD-679121.
2. SMT.DIVYA D/O.LATE A.JAYARAJ, VASATHAM, MANJAKKAD SHORANUR, PALAKKAD-679121. R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1310-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 134 of 2014 (Z) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------------------- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.1206/2013 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.J/P CON/CGA/5/11 DATED295.2012 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT SR.DPO. ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.J/P.CON/CGA/5/11 DATED1511.2012 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT SR.DPO. ANNEXURE A10:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.PB/CS/30/PGT/2012/8 DATED153.2013 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT GENERAL MANAGER. ANNEXURE A11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.J/P.CON/CGA5/11 DATED24.2013 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT SR.DPO ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF HER FATHER A.JAYARAJ ISSUED BY THE SHORANUR MUNICIPALITY ON1011.2011. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED265.2011. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF MATRIMONIAL APPEAL NO.741/2011 WAS ALLOWED AND DECREE OF DIVORCE WAS GRANTED AS PER THE JUDGMENT
DATED177.2012. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
IN R.P.NO.792/2012 IN MATRIMONIAL APPEAL NO.741/2011 DATED139.2012. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN PRESCRIBED FORMAT WITH A COVERING LETTER DATED1411.2011. ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY MOTHER OF THE APPLICANT TO SECOND RESPONDENT DATED287.2012. ANNEXURE A9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED UNDER RTI DATED101.2013. ANNEXURE A12: TRUE COPY OF THE RBE ORDER
NO.224/2001. ANNEXURE A13:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF BOARD ORDER
NO.E(NG)III/78/RC-1/1 DATED32.1981. EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES OP(CAT) 134/2014 ANNEXURE R1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED1411.2011 OF SMT.DHANAPUSHPAM, FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. ANNEXURE R2: TRUE COPIES OF LETTERS DATED241.2014 OF SMT.DHANAPUSHPAM AND SMT.DIVYA. ANNEXURE R3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED __.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE R4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED1811.2011 ISSUED TO SMT.DHANAPUSHPAM BY PETITIONERS. EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO392014 IN O.A.NO.1206/2013 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.40/2014 IN O.A.NO.1206/2013 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER
DTD.24/7/2014 IN OA NO12062013 OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO J/P CON/CGA/51/11 DTD211/2013 ISSUED BY PETITIONER NO.3 TO HEADQUARTERS OFFICE. EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE ASSTT.PERSONNEL OFFICER(E)'S REPORT DTD. 12/2/2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------- EXHIBIT R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED218.2014 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED218.2014 EXECUTED BY R.DHANAPUSHPAM MOTHER OF RESPONDENT NO.1. EXHIBIT R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED218.2014 EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. EXHIBIT R1(d) : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE FIRST PETITIONER-GENERAL MANAGER DATED258.2014. EXHIBIT R1(e) : A COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN CELL, PALAKKAD DATED212.2014. EXHIBIT R1(f) : A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR OF SHORANUR POLICE STATION NO.197 DATED53.2014. O.P.(CAT) 134/2014 EXHIBIT R1(g) : A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR OF PALAKKAD TOWN WOUTH POLICE STATION NO.1198 DATED158.2014 WITH FIS. EXHIBIT R1(h) : A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PETITIONERS1- 4 DATED267.2014. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------- O.P.(CAT) No.134 of 2014 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2014 JUDGMENT
Jayaraj, father of Nithya and Divya, was an employee in the Southern Railway. He died in harness. His widow is Dhanapushpam.
2. Nithya, the daughter of Jayaraj, made a claim for appointment in the Southern Railway under the compassionate employment scheme. That request was rejected. Thereafter, the widow of Jayaraj put forward a claim for Divya. That was also rejected. Divya also made a claim for compassionate employment. Meanwhile, Nithya made an application for re-considering her claim for compassionate O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 2 employment. The General Manager of Southern Railway rejected that claim as per the order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A10). Nithya challenged the orders rejecting her claim for compassionate employment before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Southern Railway and directed them to consider the request made by Nithya for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. While doing so, the Tribunal imposed costs of 10,000/- each on the General Manager of Southern Railway and the Secretary (Establishment), Railway Board (Respondents 1 and 5 respectively before the Tribunal). The Central Administrative Tribunal also made several adverse remarks against the officials of the Railway while disposing of the Original Petition. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the General Manager, O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 3 Southern Railway and others, who are respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal.
3. At the time when Jayaraj was in service of the Railways, Nithya was married, but her relationship with her husband was not cordial. It would appear that Nithya was staying with her father as his dependant. Later, Nithya's husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court dismissed that Original Petition, which was challenged by him in Mat.Appeal No.741 of 2011 before this Court. Pending that Mat.Appeal, Nithya and her husband settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre and a mediated settlement agreement was arrived at. The Division Bench accepted that agreement holding cruelty as a ground for divorce. Certain observations were made in paragraph 5 of that O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 4 judgment for justifying the passing of a decree of divorce. Nithya filed a Review Petition to expunge those remarks made in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The Division Bench allowed the Review Petition and paragraph 5 of the judgment was substituted by another paragraph.
4. In the order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A10), the claim was rejected on the ground that Nithya was leading "quite a chequered life as appears to have been accepted by the Honourable Court also". The Tribunal noticed that the High Court had reviewed the earlier order and expunged the adverse remarks against Nithya and this fact was not noticed in Annexure A10 order.
5. The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 5 claim put forward by Nithya in detail and held that the rejection of her claim for appointment was not justified. While doing so, several adverse remarks were made against the officers of the Southern Railway and also imposed costs of 10,000/- on two of its officers. The Tribunal also directed the application of Nithya to be considered afresh in the light of Annexure A9 report.
6. We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the orders passed by the respondents before the Tribunal rejecting the claim made by Nithya. However, we do not find any justification for making adverse comments and remarks against the officers of the Southern Railway to justify the setting aside of the orders passed by them. The Tribunal was O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 6 also not justified in imposing costs on the officers of the Railway.
7. Therefore, while upholding the direction to respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal to reconsider the claim of Nithya for compassionate employment, we set aside the direction to pay costs and also expunge all adverse remarks in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal against the officers of the Southern Railway. As directed by the Tribunal, the claim made by Nithya shall be considered afresh.
8. The learned counsel appearing for Nithya submitted that subsequent to the filing of the O.P.(CAT), Divya and Dhanapushpam had relinquished claims for compassionate employment and they issued No Objection Certificates dated O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 7 21.8.2014, true copies of which were produced as Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). Nithya had also signed an undertaking before the Notary Public that on getting employment under the compassionate employment scheme, she would look after her mother Dhanapushpam (marked as Exhibit R1(c)). We hold that Nithya would be entitled to submit the originals of Exhibits R1(a), R1(b) and R1(c) before the General Manager, Southern Railway, which will be duly considered while disposing of the claim of Nithya under the compassionate employment scheme as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Nithya had made unwarranted remarks against the High Court. In paragraph 4.5 of the O.A. filed by her before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nithya O.P.(CAT) No.134/2014 8 averred that the High Court made disparaging remarks about the applicant which were totally unwarranted in a compromise decree. The learned counsel appearing for Nithya submitted that Nithya unconditionally apologizes for making those remarks against the High Court and she withdraws the same. The apology is accepted. The O.P.(CAT) is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE P.D.RAJAN JUDGE csl