- (1.) The order impugned in this writ petition has been passed in O.A. No. 165 of 2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench on 16th September 2011. The application filed by the respondents under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act for compassionate appointment of the respondent No. 2 has been allowed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by that order the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- (i) Muskoo Oraon was employed as a Senior Track man. He died-inharness on 12th May 2004. His wife Smt. Mangri Oraon died on 3rd April 1988. However during the subsistence of his first marriage, the deceased employee married respondent No. 1. They had three children that is the petitioner No. 2, who is their son and two daughters. A daughter, who was born from the first marriage of the deceased employee, is married. (ii) After the death of Muskoo Oraon the respondents preferred an application for the appointment of respondent No. 2 in his place on compassionate grounds. The application was rejected by the respondents. The reasons for rejection of the application were that he was the son of the second wife of the deceased employee and that the employee had not obtained permission from the authorities before marrying again while the first marriage was subsisting. The respondents, therefore, challenged the decision of the petitioners before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2010 1 CalLJ 464 the respondent No. 2 was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The circular issued by the Railways dated 2nd January 1992 was quashed by this court. It was therefore held that, the second marriage would not be a bar for the consideration of the claim of respondent No. 2. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No. 2, in accordance with the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Nagpal vs. Union of India & Ors., 1994 4 SCC 138, within six months from the date of the impugned order.
(3.) Mr. Ashok Chakraborty appearing for the petitioners has submitted before us that the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondents as the deceased employee was working with Northeast Frontier Railway in the Katihar division. The learned counsel submitted that since Katihar does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta bench the application could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. He further pointed out that the Headquarters of the Northeast Frontier Railway are at Maligoan which is in Assam and therefore, the respondents could not maintain the application before the Calcutta Bench.;