Bombay High Court
Smt. Chindhibai Wd/O Kaliram ... vs Union Of India, Through General ... on 27 September, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
WP3242.14 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3242 OF 2014.
PETITIONER: Smt.Chindhibai wd/o Kaliram Sukhalal,
aged about 64 yeas, Occu: Nil, r/o C/o
Shri Sahebrao Atulkar, Ajni Railway
Qtr.No.RB-I/396/B, Ajni Railway Colony,
ig Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENTS: 1) Union of India, through General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai,
CSTM - 440001.
2) Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway, Nagpur Division,
Kings Way Nagpur - 440001.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.B.Bambal, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE: 27th SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per V.M.Deshpande, J.)
1. Heard the learned counsel Shri A.B.Bambal for the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents chose to
remain absent when the matter was called out for final hearing.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the
judgment and order passed by learned Member of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Camp at Nagpur, dated
21st of February, 2014 in Original Application (OA) No.2019 of
2010. By the said judgment, the original Application filed on
behalf of the petitioner seeking family pension from the
respondents was dismissed.
3. The husband of the petitioner, late Shri Kaliram
Sukhalal, who was working as a temporary Gangman, died on 17 th
of December, 1978. After his death, the petitioner was appointed
as Group 'D' employee by the respondents on compassionate
ground on 8th of October, 1986. The petitioner, however, made
an application for family pension with respondents. On 12 th of
June, 2006, the said prayer of the petitioner was rejected on the
ground that the service record of her husband is not available.
Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of her representation, she
approached before the Central Administrative Tribunal, by moving
an application being O.A.No.2199 of 2006 which was disposed of
by the learned Tribunal on 16th of March, 2007 with a direction to
the respondents herein to consider the claim of the petitioner in
the light of the evidence brought on record and dispose of her
representation.
4. Consequent to the said decision, a fresh representation
was filed by the petitioner on 23rd of April, 2007. However, vide
communication dated 25th of June, 2007 the said representation
was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the
documents which were filed on behalf of the petitioner in support
of her representation were issued by the Officer who is not
Gazetted Officer competent to issue such documents and hence
those documents were not authenticated. Further, it was
revealed to her that only the Assistant Divisional Engineer is the
competent and authenticate authority to certify those documents.
This communication was the subject-matter of O.A.No.2019 of
2010 from which the present Writ Petition arises.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
in view of the submissions filed on record before this Court by the
respondents, it is clear that after the death of petitioner's husband
she was appointed as Group 'D' employee on a compassionate
ground. Further, she filed an affidavit dated 6 th of January, 2003
in the Pension Adalat that her deceased husband, who was an
employee, was governed by the State Railway Provident Fund
Rules and after his retirement was not to get any pension and was
entitled to get ex gratia pension. As per the affidavit of the
respondents, the aforesaid fact is not denied by the petitioner, nor
the same is disputed before this Court by petitioner at the time of
hearing.
6. Further, the husband of the petitioner was appointed on
22nd of December, 1977 in PW-I (M) Kalaakhar and his status in
the settlement register was shown as temporary. In our view, the
learned Tribunal has rightly observed that there is no document
available on record to show that the petitioner's husband was
appointed in a regular or temporary post by following the
Recruitment Rules or guidelines for appointment or was
appointed in a temporary status as Class IV employee without
specific pay scale. In our view, the learned Tribunal was further
right in observing that the status of petitioner's husband was a
temporary Gangman and in a officiating capacity with a fixed pay
scale.
7. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the view taken by the
learned Tribunal that in her affidavit nothing was pointed out by
the petitioner that her husband was appointed in a sanctioned
post with a specific pay band and therefore, it is clear that the
petitioner was interested in getting ex gratia payment in lieu of
pension. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly
stated that there is no hardship to the petitioner since she is
already employed in the services. Consequently, in our view, it is
not a case wherein the Court should exercise its discretion under
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the
petition is dismissed, however, without there being any order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
chute
CERTIFICATE
I Certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : P.Z.Chute.
Uploaded on : 29/9/2016.
