Woman’s compassionate appointment plea dismissed

Noting that a forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery and reversal of result, a bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice R Hemalatha, said “This applies to this writ petition also. Optimism has a limit. It cannot be unrestricted. It cannot be without basis. There are no merits in this writ petition for this court to go into.”

The bench in its order also held that in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by counsel appearing for the Railways, “the ‘adoption’ itself appears to have been executed to circumvent the law. 

Had the adoption not taken place before the demise of Srinivasa Rao, the family pension would not have been granted. That the petitioner had her biological parents and that she was living with them are all so evident that there cannot be any justification to explain the same.”

“However, it is true that the deceased Srinivasa Rao had no dependents and his only ‘legal heir ‘was duly recognised and paid all the terminal benefits including family pension.  She also has no dependents to warrant the grant of compassionate appointment.  The only reason which is being harped on by the petitioner is the apparent cessation of the family pension,” the bench said.

As per the case, Srinivasa Rao, who was working as Technician, expired on June 19, 2005, due to heart attack.  He was unmarried at the time of his death and had adopted his brother’s daughter Nuna Siva Priya, who was seven years old through the adoption deed dated June 01, 2005. After his demise, all the terminal benefits were settled to her, including the family pension.  Thereafter, on October 21, 2011, a representation was made on her behalf for compassionate appointment which was rejected on March 05, 2013, citing the reason that no dependency exists.

She was only 17 years old then and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which directed the Railways to make an objective assessment and pass a speaking order.  But the Railways rejected the claim once more on June 20, 2016. Aggrieved over this, another plea was moved resulting in CAT dismissing it after holding that the reasoning of the Railways suffered no infirmity. Subsequently, a review of the same order was also dismissed, resulting in her moving the high court.