UNION OF INDIA Vs. SEETHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 43057 of 2004 dated 5th January 2007, is questioned in this appeal. The facts of the case is that the respondent filed the writ petition to settle the family pension and retirement benefits payable to her on account of the service rendered by her husband, late P.N. Rama Iyengar. It was her case that her husband, P.N. Rama Iyengar was an employee of the Postal department. He served as Post Master at Kolar and retired from service on 6th May 1960. Since he was suffering from paralytic stroke, he died on 5th July 1974. As her husband was suffering from paralytic stroke, he could not claim the terminal benefits and since the respondent had no particulars of service records of her husband, she also could not take steps immediately. In the circumstance, she had made representation dated 7th September 2003 for grant of family pension. On the ground that her case has not been considered, she filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, considering her age and background, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to consider her case for payment of family pension looking into the service records of her husband, late P.N. Rama Iyengar. This judgment is called into question in this appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. Prakash Shetty, the learned Counsel for the appellants, has made twofold submissions. According to him, firstly, the writ petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable as she should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal; and secondly, the respondent has failed to produce the legal heirship certificate.

(3.) We are unable to accept both the contentions of the learned counsel, for the following reasons: