(Prayer: This WP is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in O.A.No.170/00765/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore at Anenx-C and consequently dismiss the application.)Jayant Patel, J.1. Rule2. Mr. Ganapathi, learned counsel appears for the respondent and waives notice of rule.3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, petition is finally heard.4. The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the application observing that there exists relation of father and son and therefore, the respondent should consider the case for compassionate appointment.5. The short facts of the case appear to be that, one Abdul Azeez Nizamuddin was working as key man with the Railways-the petitioner herein. He expired on 12.9.2012 while on duty. It appears that the respondent claimed for compassionate appointment on the ground that he was born to the second wife of the railway employee. But, the Railway authorities did not offer compassionate appointment and therefore, OA No.765/2015 was preferred before the Tribunal. It was contended inter alia that a civil suit OS No.292/13 was filed and in the said suit, a decree was passed on August 20,2013 and as per the settlement, the parties namely the first wife had expressed no objection if the respondent claimed the compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has ultimately observed thus:Heard, the applicant is a Muslim, the only ground on which he was not considered was that he is the son of a second wife. Assume that he was born of a concubine and not of a wife even then the consideration is only the nexus between father and son and nothing else. The only matter to be considered is that the indigency and suitability of the candidate. Therefore the respondents shall do within two months next and pass appropriate order. OA is allowed to his extent. No order as to costs.6. As such, the aforesaid shows that there is no detailed consideration about the aspects of service condition vis-a-vis the personal law of deceased Government Servant. The Tribunal proceeded only on the basis that there exists a relation of father and son and therefore the matter deserves to be considered on suitability of the candidate and ultimately directed for consideration. Under the circumstance, the present petition before this Court.7. We have heard Mr. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ganapathi, learned counsel for the respondent.8. As such, in our view, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WP 37642/15 decided on 14.11.2016 wherein one of the contentions raised was that the circular of the Railways is set aside by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal. This Court et paragraphs 2 to 16 in the said decision observed thus:2. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and waives notice of Rule.3. The present petition is directed against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the review application and has allowed the main OA by directing the respondents to consider the second applicant for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time limit.4. The short relevant facts of the case appears to be that initially O.A. No.587/2013 was preferred by the respondents for the compassionate appointment of respondent No.2 contending interalia that one Sri V. Nagraj, who was employee of the petitioners died on 11.101998 leaving behind three wives. It was submitted that earlier the Tribunal had directed the daughter of second wife Kum,Anitha S.N., to be considered for compassionate appointment. However, the daughter of second wife was medically found unfit and therefore it was prayed that respondent No.2 herein being the son of third wife be treated as eligible for compassionate appointment and the petitioners be directed to consider the same. In the said O.A. vide order dated 25.07.2018 the Tribunal found that there is no rule that the eldest child should be entitled for the compassionate appointment and the Tribunal also found that when there is no rule produced in respect of providing employment to the children of third wife, the second applicant therein who is respondent No.2 herein cannot contend that he being the eldest child of late Sri v. Nagraj be considered for compassionate appointment. Ultimately the Tribunal dismissed the application with the cost of Rs.10,000/-.5. It appears that thereafter review application was preferred being No.1/2014 against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the review application found that the aspect that the father of the applicant did not obtain permission of the Railway for second marriage was already considered and therefore the second respondent herein who is the eldest son would be entitled to the compassionate appointment. The Tribunal mainly proceeded on the basis that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children is of no issue. There is no distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate children and all children are equally to be considered. Hence the Tribunal allowed the review application and also allowed the O.A. and further directed the respondents therein to consider the second respondent herein for compassionate appointment. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.6. We have heard Mr. Abhinay Y.T., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.7. As such, it is an undisputed position that the deceased Government employee Mr. V. Nagraj, did not enter second marriage or third marriage after obtaining permission of Railway. Further, it is also admitted position that the deceased Sri V. Nagraj died as back as on 11.10.1998 and by now about 18 years time has passed and if we consider the date of the application made before the Tribunal then also about 15 years time had passed.8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as per the Circular of the Railway dated 02.01.1992 unless the marriage was performed after obtaining permission of the Railway, the children of second or third wife would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Further, he submitted that substantial period of time has passed and the compassionate appointment cannot be considered after such a long time. He relied upon decisions of this Court which shall be considered by us hereinafter. He also contended that the Tribunal, that too in review jurisdiction could not have directed for consideration of the compassionate appointment of the second respondent. Hence he contended that this Court may set aside the order passed by the Tribunal below the review application.9. Whereas the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the very Circular dated 02.01.1992 is considered by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal and the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal has found that there is no nexus in achieving the object by the Circular dated 02.01.1992 and hence the Tribunal quashed the Circular and further directed the Railway to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the aforesaid decision of the tribunal was carried before the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Appeal No.8545/2015 and the High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 23.07.2015 dismissed the petition of the Railway and confirmed the order of the Tribunal. He submitted that therefore the Circular upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners when it is already quashed by the other Bench of the Tribunal and the High Court of Gujarat has not interfered with the same, cannot be considered for defeating the rights of the respondents and hence he submitted that the petition may be dismissed.10. We may at the outset record that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the main O.A. is dated 25.07.2013 Annexure B and below the review application is dated 13.05.2015. Whereas the order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal is dated 18.03.2015 and the High Court of Gujarat has passed the order on 23.07.2015. It is undisputed position that the Tribunal in the impugned order below the review application has not allowed the review application on the basis of the order passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal for quashing of the Circular nor has relied upon the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 23.07.2015. The Tribunal has gone by the broad principles that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child is no issue before the Court and has found that the second respondent would be entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment.11. We may at this stage usefully refer to the view taken by this Court. In W.P.No.45392/2013 and connected matter in case of Union of India Vs. Smt. Nithya S.E. decided on 22.2.2016, the question arose for consideration of compassionate appointment of the members of the Railway employee who died while in service. This Court at paragraph-10 by relying upon the master circular observed thus:10. Insofar as the appointment on the Compassionate grounds is concerned, the same is also not permissible in view of Supplementary Circular No.5 of Master Circular No.16 vide Annexure-D. The said Circular reads thus:It is clarified that in the case of Railway employees dying in harness, etc. leaving more than one widow along with children born to the second wife, while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Court orders or other wise on merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law, etc.2. The fact that the second marriage is not permissible clarified in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of initial appointment.3. This may be kept in view and he cases for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her words need not be forwarded to Railway Board.From the aforementioned, it is clear that the appointments on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the Administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law. As mentioned supra, the personal law of S.N.Ethirajulu or Smt. Nitya S.E. (second wife) does not permit them to marry second time. Therefore, Smt. Nitya S.E., being the second wife is not entitled for the appointment on compassionate grounds.12. The aforesaid shows that this Court has already taken the view that the appointment on compassionate ground to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage in special circumstances taking into account the personal law.13. Again the question did arise for consideration for the validity of the master circular and the entitlement of the compassionate appointment in respect of the Government servant who had expired but entered into second marriage due to his personal law but did not obtain permission of the Railway for entering second marriage. This Court in case of Mohammed Ghouse Vs. Union of India in W.P.No.37318/2016 decided on 27.09.2016 while considering the master circular and the personal law as well as the service conditions, observed at paragraph-5 and 6 as under:5. We may record that the personal law of any employee is one aspect whereas his relation with the employer being governed by the service condition is another aspect. It was not a matter where on account of his personal law something was to be invalidated. It was rather a matter where service condition provided a particular right with the dependent member of the employee for compassionate appointment. As per the Master Circular No.5 of the Railway which has also been referred to by the Tribunal for the compassionate appointment, it has been expressly provided as under:It is clarified that in the case of Railway employees dying in harness etc, leaving more than one widow along with children born to the 2nd wife, while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Court orders or otherwise on merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law etc.2. The fact that the second marriage is not permissible is invariably clarified in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of initial appointment.3. This may be kept in view and the cases for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be forwarded to Railway Board.6. If the aforesaid Circular is considered, it is clear that as per the service condition, the widow from second marriage and her children are not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, unless the second marriage is performed after taking permission of the administration. In our view, if the service condition provides for regulating the provision for compassionate appointment, on account of the personal law, such service condition cannot be diluted nor can be nullified, more particularly, when such service condition is not under challenge nor at any point of time was under challenge during the lifetime of the employee concerned.14. Ultimately this Court did not interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal dismissing the application seeking compassionate appointment.15. It is true that the Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal considered the matter. The aforesaid views already taken by this Court were neither brought to the notice nor considered by the Ahmedabad bench of the Tribunal and so is the case when the matter came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat. In our view, when there are already two binding decisions of this Court and in one decision one of us (Jayant Patel J) was a member, with respect, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court of Gujarat, confirming the above referred decision the view taken by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal.16. In our view as such, when there are two decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, they are, in any case binding to us. Hence, we cannot accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents.Ultimately this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal.9. As such, in view of the aforesaid decision, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2010 LAB T.C. 1465, contended that the said circular upon which the reliance has been placed by the Railways has been set aside by the Calcutta High Court and it was submitted that, under these circumstances, it is not open to the Railways to rely upon the said circular and deny the compassionate appointment. He alternatively contended that as per the view taken by the Calcutta High Court, the case of the respondent deserves to be considered for compassionate appointment and hence this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.11. As such, when the decision is of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (wherein one of us Jayant Patel, J was a member), we are bound by the view of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Apart from the aforesaid, it appears that in the decision of the Calcutta High Court, the Court has proceeded on the basis that on consideration of the case for compassionate appointment is at par with the Estate of the Government servant and the decision of the Apex Court in case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 [LQ/SC/2000/181] has been relied upon.12. It is by now well settled that no Government Servant has any vested right for compassionate appointment. It is only out of compassion and to offer solace to the family for immediate financial support, the policy of compassionate appointment is to be considered. When there is no vested right with the Government Servant for seeking compassionate appointment, it cannot be treated as an Estate of any Government servant or estate of any person who was in employment to apply the law of succession as per the personal law of the respective Government servant.13. Under these circumstances, with respect, we cannot agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court and we find it appropriate to concur with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the above referred decision dated 14.11.2016.14. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the application of the applicant shall stand dismissed.15. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent accordingly. Rule made absolute accordingly.16. No order as to costs.