Gujarat High Court
Manojkumar B Pithaya S/O . Bhagwandas ... vs Union Of India Thro General Manager, ... on 30 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4931 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
MANOJKUMAR B PITHAYA S/O . BHAGWANDAS PITHYAYA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
THRO GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. MN MARFATIA(6930) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DARSHAN P DAVE(5928) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR RAHUL D. PATEL, ADVOCATE for
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. This is a classic case of abuse of the process of law by the
petitioner, who has filed the present writ petition challenging the
appointment of respondent No.4 - his stepmother, who has been
appointed on compassionate ground by the Railway-authorities,
as per the directions of the Tribunal.
2. The facts recorded in the writ petition are that the father of
the petitioner - Bhagwan Das was employed as a Sweeper in the
Railway Workshop at Dahod. He passed away on 23.01.2010
during his service. It appears that the petitioner made a
representation on 20.06.2011 seeking compassionate
appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
3. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") by filing
Original Application (O.A.) No.393 of 2010 seeking directions for
consideration of compassionate appointment as well as payment
of certain retiral dues. The Tribunal, by an order dated
06.07.2011 passed in O.A. No.393 of 2010, disposed of the same
by directing the competent authority to consider the claim of the
applicant i.e. the present petitioner, according to the rules, and if
there are any other rival claims, they may also be considered
together and an appropriate decision may be taken.
4. It appears that thereafter the case of the petitioner was
rejected in the month of September, 2011 by the respondent-
authority on the ground that he did not have the requisite
qualification of 10th Std Pass, as per the policy / Circular dated
05.01.2011 of the Railways.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal by
filing O.A. No.123 of 2013, which was also dismissed by the
Tribunal by the order dated 18.11.2013.
6. From the facts recorded in the order dated 18.11.2013
passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.123 of 2013, we find that
another applicant i.e. the petitioner's younger brother - Manish,
had also applied for compassionate appointment along with the
request of respondent No.4 - Smt. Resham Bai, who is the wife of
the deceased and step-mother of the petitioner. Hence, the
General Manager did not consider the case of the petitioner for
relaxing the educational qualification as per the Railway Board's
letter dated 20.03.2012.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
7. The Tribunal has considered three aspects; (i) non-
fulfilment of the requisite educational qualification by the
petitioner, (ii) absence of any record to show that his family is in
indigent condition, and (iii) the existence of rival claims from the
same family for compassionate appointment.
8. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner, Manish filed O.A
No.340 of 2013, the same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide
order dated 08.08.2014, by recording that the Railway may
consider the case of the mother of the petitioner for the
compassionate appointment.
9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Review Application
No.40 of 2014. The same was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide
order dated 12.01.2015.
10. It appears that thereafter, respondent no.4-the widow of the
deceased was offered appointment by giving preference as per
the policy.
11. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the aforesaid orders and the appointment of the widow.
12. Learned advocate Mr.Hemant Makwana, appearing for the
petitioner, has submitted that when the father of the petitioner
passed away on 23.01.2010, there were two sons viz.
Manojkumar (the petitioner) and Manish, whereas the mother -
Leelaben, had also passed away. The deceased had nominated
his son, i.e. the present petitioner, and his wife - Leelaben, and
the ration card and relevant documents also suggest that the
deceased had two sons. The wife of the deceased - Leelaben
passed away on 14.08.1988. Thus, it is submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
respondent-authority could have only appointed the petitioner
instead of respondent No.4. It is further submitted that
respondent No.4 is not the widow of the deceased employee, and
the review application filed by the petitioner against the
judgment and order passed by the Tribunal was also illegally
rejected.
13. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Rahul Patel, appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, has submitted that looking at the age of
respondent No.4 at the time of filing the writ petition and by now
respondent No.4 has retired on 31.05.2025, the present petition
itself has become infructuous. It is further submitted by him that
the petitioner did not have the educational qualification at the
relevant time, and hence, his case was rejected, as per the
circular dated 05.01.2011. It is submitted that respondent No.4,
who was the wife of the deceased employee, was appointed.
Thus, it is submitted that the matter has become infructuous, as
another person is appointed to the post of respondent No.4 after
her retirement and looking to the family controversy, the Tribunal
has precisely rejected the original applications. It is submitted
that, pursuant to the order dated 08.08.2014 passed in the
Original Application No.340 of 2013, which was filed by
respondent No.3, who is the brother of the petitioner, the
Tribunal, vide order dated 08.08.2014, directed the respondents
to appoint the respondent No.4 after she filed necessary
applications before the Divisional Railway Manager, Ratlam.
14. When we had invited the attention on the subsequent
development of retirement of respondent No.4 from the post,
resulting the matter having become academic / infructuous,
learned advocate Mr.Makwana has asserted that the matter has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
not become infructuous, and the petitioner can still be appointed
on such post.
15. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
16. There are multiple claimants to the post of Sweeper, on
which the deceased employee - Bhagwan Das, was employed
when he passed away on 23.01.2010. Ultimately, respondent
No.4, the widow of the deceased employee was appointed on
compassionate appointment as per the policy on 12.12.2014 in
compliance with the order dated 08.08.2014 passed in Original
Application No.340 of 2014 by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad, and on
attaining the age of superannuation, she has retired on
31.05.2025. Despite this fact, the petitioner is still asserting his
right on compassionate appointment.
17. The petitioner is aggrieved by the actions of respondent
No.3, who is his brother and also by the appointment of
respondent No.4, who is his stepmother. It appears that the
petitioner initially filed O.A. No.393 of 2010 for claiming
compassionate appointment as well as certain retiral dues, which
was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to
consider his claim in accordance with the rules and to pass
appropriate orders. Thereafter, since his application was rejected
by the Tribunal on the ground that he did not possess the
requisite qualification of 10th Standard pass, he again assailed the
said action by filing O.A. No.123 of 2013.
18. It appears that though respondent No.4 had initially given
no objection in favour of the petitioner to be appointed on
compassionate grounds, later on 12.02.2013, she herself
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
submitted an application to be appointed on compassionate
groundsor to have her son - Manish (i.e. respondent No.3),
appointed to the said post.
19. We have noticed that since the case of the petitioner was
rejected on the ground of want of educational qualification, his
brother i.e. respondent No.3 also filed an application seeking
compassionate appointment. All the applications initially made on
three occasions by the petitioner i.e. on 27.03.2010, 20.06.2011,
and 24.02.2012 were rejected by the respondent-authority.
20. The first application filed by the petitioner was rejected, as
per the policies dated 04.03.1999 and 29.07.1999, which
prescribed minimum educational qualification for getting
appointment as Std. 8th Pass. The petitioner cleared the 8 th Std in
May, 2011. The second application, after clearing the 8 th std was
made on 20.06.2011, when the qualifications were enhanced
from 8th Std to 10th Std. Therefore, again the application was
rejected. The action of the rejection was ultimately, confirmed by
the Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2013 passed in O.A No.123
of 2013. The said order was not assailed by the petitioner before
the High Court and was accepted. Only after the order dated
14.12.2013 was passed in O.A No.340 of 2013 by the brother of
the petitioner, the petitioner filed Review Application No.40 of
2012, realizing that the same is in favour of the widow-
respondent No.4.
21. The relevant observations of the order dated 08.08.2014
passed in O.A. No.340 of 2013 are as under:
"3. Both the learned counsel for the parties submit that as per the
policy of the railways relating to the appointment on compassionate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
ground the widow of railway servant gets first preference for
appointment on compassionate grounds amongst any other
dependents of the deceased railway employee.
4. The widow of late Shri Bhagwandas namely Smt. Reshma, who is
present before the Court submits that she is ready and willing to
accept any appointment that may be offered by the railway
authorities on compassionate grounds. She submits that she will be
filing necessary application/representation to this effect within 15
days from today before the Divisional Railway Manager, Ratlam.
She is directed to furnish a copy of the same to Shri M.J.Patel so as
to enable him to see that the matter is resolved and the applicant
gets appointment immediately for the reason that the family is in
financial stress. The application/representation to be submitted by
the applicant shall be considered by the railway authorities as per
the extant rules. Whole exercise shall be completed within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order "
22. Thus, the narration of the aforesaid order reflects that, a
statement was made by the learned advocates of the respective
parties that, as per the policy of the Railway regarding
compassionate appointments, the widow of the railway servant
gets first preference. Accordingly, the Tribunal recorded the
statement of the widow that she was ready and willing to accept
any appointment that may be offered by the Railway authorities
on compassionate ground, and accordingly, the Tribunal directed
that she may file the necessary applications to the Railways. The
respondent - Railway authorities were directed to decide such
application, as per the extant rules.
23. Review Application No.40 of 2014 in O.A. No.340 of 2013
was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment and order
dated 12.01.2015. We find that the Tribunal, by a comprehensive
order considering all the relevant facts, including earlier orders,
dismissed the review application after considering the judgment
of the Supreme Court on the issue of compassionate
appointment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
24. It is reported by learned advocate Mr.Rahul D. Patel, that
respondent No.4, on attaining the age of superannuation, has
retired on 31.05.2025. It is also pertinent to note that respondent
No.4, who was appointed on compassionate grounds pursuant to
the Tribunal's order dated 08.08.2014, has already attained the
age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2025. In
view of this, the relief sought in the present writ petition has
become infructuous since another person has already been
appointed on the post of respondent No.4. Hence, the
appointment, which is under challenge no longer subsists, and no
effective order can be passed, at this stage.
25. The entire case of the petitioner hinges on only one ground
that respondent No.4 was not a legally wedded wife of the
deceased employee. The Tribunal also considered this aspect,
while passing the order in the review application and observed
that the said claim is also contrary. The Railway authorities, after
examining all the requisite aspects, has ultimately, in their
wisdom and by adopting the policy of giving first preference to
the widow of the deceased employee, appointed her on
compassionate ground.
26. The petitioner is a disgruntled son, who has been claiming
compassionate appointment since 2010, though he is not
qualified as per the policy of the Railways. He has doubted the
status of respondent No.4, by alleging that, she was not legally
wedded to the deceased employee.
27. On an overall appreciation of the facts and in light of the
respondent No.4 has already retired from the post, on which she
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4931/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
was appointed on compassionate ground, no further orders can
be passed. The present petition is devoid of any merit and is
required to be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Such amount
shall be deposited before the Registry of this Court within a
period of two weeks, failing which the Registry shall issue a
recovery certificate, and the amount or cost of Rs.10,000/- shall
be recovered from the writ petitioner by way of land revenue.
RULE is discharged.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MAHESH/07
