1. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 27th January, 2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in OA 350/01007/2015. By the said order, the learned Tribunal has directed the respondents in the original application to consider the claim of the applicant/respondent herein afresh, in the light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Namita Goldar v. Union of India, reported in 2010 (1) CLJ (Cal) 464.
2. Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the claim of the applicant towards compassionate appointment was rejected by the competent authority by an order dated 20 January, 2015 placing reliance upon the Railway Board circular no. 1/92 dated 24 January, 1992 which, inter alia, provides that appointment on compassionate ground to the second widow and her children are not to be considered. The validity of the said circular has been upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand through a judgment delivered in W.P (S) No. 16 of 2014 [M.V.V Prakash v. Union of India], upon taking into consideration the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Namita Goldar (supra) and as such the applicant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment since he is admittedly the son of the second wife of late Tinu Jamadar and that such second marriage was void. In view of the said judgment delivered by the High Court of Jharkhand, the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the original application.
3. Heard Mr. Datta and considered the materials on record. A perusal of the judgment delivered by the High Court of Jharkhand reveals that the Court did not take into consideration the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Niru Devi v. Union of India, reported in 2012 (5) CHN (Cal) 565. The judgment delivered in the case of Namita Goldar (supra) was simply said to be distinguishable on facts and the Court did not consider the reasoning given in the said judgment for quashing the circular no. 1/92 dated 24 January, 1992. As such, the judgment delivered by the High Court of Jharkhand does not constitute a binding precedent. In the case of Namita Goldar (Supra) the Division Bench marshalled the relevant facts, delineated the legal issues and thereafter stated the conclusion placing reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431.
4. The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities as expeditiously as possible.