2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3660 of 2024 ---- Nabanita Chakraborty, Aged about-22 years, D/O Late Sitesh Kumar Chakraborty, Vill-Talbagicha, Ward No. 35, Kharagpur Local, P.O.-Talbagicha, P.S.:-Talbagicha, District- West Midnapur, West Bengal. … … Petitioner Versus 1.The Union of India through Government of India, through General Manager, S.E. Railway, Garden Reach,P.O. & P.S.- Garden Reach, Kolkata. 2.Divsional Railway Manager, CKP Division, S.E. Railway, P.O. & P.S.-Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum. 3.Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer (Rectt.), CKP Division, S.E. Railway, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District – West Singhbhum. 4.Welfare Inspector BNDM, CKP Division, S.E. Railway, P.O. & P.S. –Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum. 5.Sima Chakraborty, aged about 41 years, W/O-Late Sitesh Kumar Chakraborty, Ex-Track Man (TM-IV) in the office of S.S.E (P-Way-i/BNDM, CKP Division, S.E. Railway, P.O. & P.S.- Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC -------- Order No. 06: Dated 22nd July, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad A.C.J. Prayer: 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in O.A. No. 623 of 2022 whereby and 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 2 - whereunder the grievance agitated by the applicant, respondent no. 5 herein, for direction to pass final order for appointment of the applicant, respondent no. 5 herein on compassionate ground has been allowed holding that the applicant-wife has first right to be considered for compassionate appointment. Facts: 2. The facts, in brief, are that the husband of the applicant/respondent no. 5 and father of the petitioner while serving as Trackman-4 under Chakradharpur Division, SCR died in harness on 02.09.2020. The first wife of the deceased employee died on 12.02.2001 and thereafter the deceased employee got married legally to the applicant-respondent no.5 on 22.11.2001. The applicant/respondent no.5’s husband was survived by one unmarried daughter from his first wife, who is writ petitioner herein, the applicant-respondent no. 5 herein and her two children. 3. After the death of the employee, the applicant- respondent no. 5, the surviving wife of the deceased employee approached the authority for grant of compassionate appointment in her favour, but the authority did not pass any order, as such she preferred application before the tribunal being O.A. No. 051/00623/2022. 4. On being noticed, the daughter from first wife, the writ petitioner also appeared and contested the case by filing 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 3 - written statement, in which, she has staked claim for compassionate appointment in her. 5. The learned Tribunal, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, has opined that the applicant-wife [respondent no. 5 herein] has the first right to be considered for compassionate appointment and accordingly directed the authorities to appoint her on compassionate ground within stipulated period of time. 6. Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner, the daughter of the deceased born out of the wedlock of first wife, has approached this Court. 7. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, who is the daughter born out of the wedlock of the deceased-employee and first wife who died on 12.02.2001. Thereafter, the deceased got married to respondent no. 5, Sima Chakraborty, on 22.11.2001. 8. After the death of the employee, the applicant- respondent no. 5, the surviving wife of the decease employee approached the authority for grant of compassionate appointment in her favour, but it did not evoke any response, as such she preferred Original Application before the Tribunal, which was allowed vide order dated 13.03.2024, which is impugned in the instant case. Submission on behalf of writ petitioner: 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 4 - 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken the ground by referring to the Scheme dated 30.12.2019 floated by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), and submitted that the said circular supports the case of the petitioner so far appointment on compassionate ground is concerned on the ground of being daughter taken birth from the wedlock of first wife. Submission on behalf of respondent-railway 10. While on the other hand, respondent-railway has defended the order passed by the Tribunal and submission has been made that there is no error in the impugned order since the said order has been passed by taking into consideration the purport of the scheme dated 30.12.2019, as per which the decision although has been taken that children born to the second wife may also be considered for compassionate appointment even where the second marriage has not been specifically permitted by the administration but it is not the case herein. It has been contended that the said scheme speaks that where the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the second wife for any of her children. Further submission has been made that the learned tribunal, taking into consideration these facts, has directed 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 5 - the appointment of respondent no. 5 being legally wedded wife, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. Analysis 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by learned tribunal in the impugned judgment as also the scheme upon which learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon. 12. On the basis of pleadings available on record, the issue which requires consideration is as to: Whether the Scheme dated 30.12.2019 is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case wherein the respondent no. 5, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased has been directed to be given appointment on compassionate ground after death of the deceased- employee? 13. This Court before deciding the said issue deems it fit and proper to discuss the jurisdiction of this Court as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC 261] in particular paragraph 99, which reads as under: “In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 6 - to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated”. 14. This Court since has been conferred to exercise power of judicial review in order to look into the legality and propriety of the decision/order/judgment passed by the learned tribunal and the principle of judicial review is well founded that if there is no error on the face of order there cannot be any interference by the superior court even the court having jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, in order to assess as to whether as has been argued on behalf of appellant can it be said that the error apparent on the face of 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 7 - order so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal. 16. Sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the scheme dated 30.12.2019. 17. We have considered the said scheme and found therefrom in particular paragraph 3 thereof wherein it has been stated that (i).the decision has been taken that the child born to the second wife may also be considered for compassionate appointment even where the second marriage has not specifically permitted by the administration. (ii).Since compassionate appointment after demise of the railway employee can be considered for granting to only one dependent family member on merits, a child born to the second wife can be considered for such appointment only after ascertaining that there is no objection from the first wife or children.(iii).where the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the second wife for any of her children. 18. It is, thus, evident that the purport of the said scheme in a case where a second marriage has been solemnized. Meaning of solemnization of second marriage would be that in the life time of first wife if the concerned employee 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 8 - solemnizes marriage then it would be said to be second marriage with the another lady. 19. But, herein that is not the case rather the case is that the first wife of the deceased-employee died on 12.02.2001 and thereafter the deceased employee got married legally to the respondent no.5 on 22.11.2001. Hence, according to our considered view, the status of respondent no. 5/applicant before the tribunal will not be said to be second wife rather her status would be legally married wife since after death of the first wife, the deceased-employee solemnized marriage with the applicant/respondent no. 5. 20. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the aforesaid scheme is not of any aid to the writ petitioner, who happens to be the children taken birth from the wedlock of first wife. The law is well settled that if the wife is surviving whose status is of legally wedded wife then the first charge would be of taking the benefit including the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground will be upon the legally wedded wife. 21. This Court, after discussing the aforesaid fact coupled with the legal issues and adverting to the finding recorded by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, has found that the said aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration and on appreciation of the content of the scheme dated 30.12.2019, the learned tribunal has come to the conclusion 2025:JHHC:20127-DB - 9 - that it is of no aid to the respondent-daughter, the writ petitioner. 22. This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has not accepted the ground agitated on behalf of writ petitioner. 23. This Court, based upon the aforesaid consideration made by the learned tribunal and the reason assigned therein, is of the view that the order passed by the learned tribunal cannot be said to suffer from an error and requires no interference, since it is not coming under the fold of error apparent on the face of order. 24. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise the power of judicial review so as to interfere with the order passed by the learned tribunal. 25. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 26. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Alankar/ N.A.F.R.