Bathula Rajesh S/O Sri Bathula Vs. the General Manager, South - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. perused the application and the reply statement.2. the main grievance of the applicant is that he has not been provided compassionate appointment on the death of his adoptive mother, who died while in service of the railways. one sri bathula rajaiah was originally recruited in the railways. he was medically decategorized in the year 1998. thereafter, in september, 2001, rajaiah's wife smt. bathula mallamma was given appointment on compassionate grounds. she expired while in service on 21.6.2005. on 6.7.2005, sri rajaiah made an application seeking payment of settlement dues of his wife to him and also to his adopted son, who is the applicant herein. the said application was rejected on 7.11.2005 stating that the legal cell of the railways advised to reject inclusion of the adopted son for payment of settlement dues, and therefore, the application dated 6.7.2005 for payment of settlement of dues not only to him but also to his adopted son was rejected. the said orders are challenged and that is only the impugned order in this case. sri rajaiah did not file any application, but the adopted son mr. b. rajesh, filed the present application seeking not only share in the settlement dues, but also compassionate appointment.4. the respondents contested the application stating that neither sri rajaiah nor his wife ever informed the respondents about their adopting the applicant and that in the railway records the name of the applicant has not been shown as their adopted son and that even otherwise the settlement dues can be paid only to the spouse and only in the absence of the spouse, the question of payment to the children arise, and therefore, the settlement dues will be paid only to sri rajaiah and not to the alleged adopted son, the applicant herein. they have further stated that the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. (ii) whether the relief seeking direction to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds can be granted in this application? 6. as seen from the impugned order, the applicant herein did not make any application to the respondents seeking either the share in the settlement dues or for compassionate appointment. it is only sri rajaiah, who had made application on 6.7.2005, a copy of which is annexed as annexure. a-v to the oa. the said application is not an application seeking compassionate appointment to the present applicant.it is only an application for payment of settlement dues and the same was rejected under the impugned order stating that it will be paid only in accordance with the rule 70(5) of rs (pension) rules, according to which case of the deceased employee leaving his spouse, it shall be paid to his spouse and that as the spouse is very much alive in this case, the respondents have paid the settlement dues to sri rajaiah, who is the spouse of late mallamma. therefore, i do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the respondents. even, if it is presumed that the applicant is the adopted son of late smt.mallamma, he cannot claim any share in settlement dues as long as sri rajaiah is alive. hence, this point is answered accordingly. (ii) in the application, the applicant has nowhere stated that neither himself nor his adoptive father sri rajaiah filed any application after the death of smt. mallamma seeking compassionate appointment for the adopted son. the impugned order does not relate to compassionate appointment. therefore, the relief prayed for in the application seeking direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds cannot be granted in this application. however, the applicant is given liberty to submit an application claiming compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules to the respondents and on filing such an application, the respondents may consider the same in accordance with rules and dispose of the same. only when the respondents reject such application, then the applicant will have cause of action to approach this tribunal. but, in this application, such a relief cannot be granted. thus, this point is also answered accordingly.7. in the result, the oa is dismissed giving liberty to the applicant to submit an application seeking compassionate appointment for consideration by the respondents in accordance with the rules. there shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. Perused the application and the reply statement.

2. The main grievance of the applicant is that he has not been provided compassionate appointment on the death of his adoptive mother, who died while in service of the Railways.

One Sri Bathula Rajaiah was originally recruited in the Railways. He was medically decategorized in the year 1998. Thereafter, in September, 2001, Rajaiah's wife Smt. Bathula Mallamma was given appointment on compassionate grounds. She expired while in service on 21.6.2005. On 6.7.2005, Sri Rajaiah made an application seeking payment of settlement dues of his wife to him and also to his adopted son, who is the applicant herein. The said application was rejected on 7.11.2005 stating that the legal cell of the Railways advised to reject inclusion of the adopted son for payment of settlement dues, and therefore, the application dated 6.7.2005 for payment of settlement of dues not only to him but also to his adopted son was rejected. The said orders are challenged and that is only the impugned order in this case. Sri Rajaiah did not file any application, but the adopted son Mr. B. Rajesh, filed the present application seeking not only share in the settlement dues, but also compassionate appointment.

4. The respondents contested the application stating that neither Sri Rajaiah nor his wife ever informed the respondents about their adopting the applicant and that in the Railway records the name of the applicant has not been shown as their adopted son and that even otherwise the settlement dues can be paid only to the spouse and only in the absence of the spouse, the question of payment to the children arise, and therefore, the settlement dues will be paid only to Sri Rajaiah and not to the alleged adopted son, the applicant herein. They have further stated that the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

(ii) Whether the relief seeking direction to the respondents to give appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds can be granted in this application? 6. As seen from the impugned order, the applicant herein did not make any application to the respondents seeking either the share in the settlement dues or for compassionate appointment. It is only Sri Rajaiah, who had made application on 6.7.2005, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure. A-V to the OA. The said application is not an application seeking compassionate appointment to the present applicant.

It is only an application for payment of settlement dues and the same was rejected under the impugned order stating that it will be paid only in accordance with the Rule 70(5) of RS (Pension) Rules, according to which case of the deceased employee leaving his spouse, it shall be paid to his spouse and that as the spouse is very much alive in this case, the respondents have paid the settlement dues to Sri Rajaiah, who is the spouse of late Mallamma. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the respondents. Even, if it is presumed that the applicant is the adopted son of late Smt.

Mallamma, he cannot claim any share in settlement dues as long as Sri Rajaiah is alive. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

(ii) In the application, the applicant has nowhere stated that neither himself nor his adoptive father Sri Rajaiah filed any application after the death of Smt. Mallamma seeking compassionate appointment for the adopted son. The impugned order does not relate to compassionate appointment. Therefore, the relief prayed for in the application seeking direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds cannot be granted in this application. However, the applicant is given liberty to submit an application claiming compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules to the respondents and on filing such an application, the respondents may consider the same in accordance with rules and dispose of the same. Only when the respondents reject such application, then the applicant will have cause of action to approach this Tribunal. But, in this application, such a relief cannot be granted. Thus, this point is also answered accordingly.

7. In the result, the OA is dismissed giving liberty to the applicant to submit an application seeking compassionate appointment for consideration by the respondents in accordance with the rules. There shall, however, be no Order as to costs.