A competent court order is unnecessary for compassionate appointment when the first wife consents.

Late Shri Hannu, an ex-Trackman under SSE(PW)(North), Lalitpur, died in harness on 17 August 2020.

Applicant No. 1, Smt. Lad Kunwar, claimed to be his second wife, while Applicant No. 2, referred to as Sone/Sonu, claimed to be his son.

Applicant No. 1 submitted applications dated 20 May 2021, 13 October 2023, 24 November 2023 and 2 July 2024 seeking compassionate appointment for Applicant No. 2.

Respondent No. 3, Smt. Bhagwati, alleged to be the deceased employee’s first wife, furnished a no-objection affidavit in favour of Applicant No. 2.

However, by order dated 16 January 2026, the Divisional Railway Manager required the applicants to obtain an order from a competent court determining Applicant No. 1’s status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee before processing the compassionate appointment claim.

The applicants challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents contended that the dispute concerning the status of the two wives was pending before the High Court in First Appeal From Order No. 271 of 2024.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to process Applicant No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment until a competent court determined Applicant No. 1’s status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

2. Whether the no-objection/consent furnished by the alleged first wife, Respondent No. 3, was sufficient to require the respondents to consider Applicant No. 2’s candidature for compassionate appointment.

The application was maintainable under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle that compassionate appointment must be considered in accordance with the applicable service rules and settled legal principles, and that an administrative authority should not insist upon a prior declaration from a competent court where the relevant legal heirs have consented to the appointment and no specific dispute regarding the claimant’s status has been recorded in the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that Applicant No. 2’s claim was supported by the consent of both Applicant No. 1 and Respondent No. 3, including the alleged first wife’s no-objection affidavit.

Although the respondents relied on the pending matrimonial-status dispute, the impugned order did not identify any specific challenge to Applicant No. 2’s status as the deceased employee’s son or to the authenticity of Respondent No. 3’s consent.

The Tribunal held that, in these circumstances, requiring the applicants to first obtain a declaration from a competent court was unnecessary.

If the respondents doubted the genuineness of Respondent No. 3’s consent, they could have summoned her to verify it rather than refusing to process the claim.

The respondents were therefore required to consider the candidature in accordance with the applicable compassionate-appointment rules.

It set aside the impugned order dated 16/19 January 2026 and directed the respondents to consider Applicant No. 2’s candidature for compassionate appointment in the next Compassionate Appointment Committee meeting, in light of the Tribunal’s observations and the governing rules.

The Original Application was allowed, all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order was made as to costs.