UNION OF INDIA Vs. M CHELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in O. A. No. 19/2008 are the writ petitioners. The applicant therein is the respondent. The writ writ petitioners challenge Ext. P4 order of the C. A. T in the above o. A. directing payment of certain benefits to the respondent, who is the widow of a Railway employee.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are the following: the respondent's husband, Mariechetty, voluntarily retired from service, after completing 21 years of service, on 18/5/1968. He died on 27/12/2003. Since the husband of the applicant opted for Special Provident Fund, he was not receiving any monthly pension. For the benefit of such employees, the government issued an order dated 27.10.1998 granting ex-gratia payment of Rs. 600.00 per month to them, provided, they retired from service prior to 31.12.1985. The said benefit was granted with effect from 1.11.1997. Since the retirees before 31.12.1985 could not be contacted, as in most cases their present addresses may not be available, the Railways made publicity through print media regarding the introduction of this new benefit to such persons. The applicant's husband did not apply for the said benefit. But, on coming to know of the said benefit available to her husband, the applicant filed o. A. No. 19/2008 claiming payment of Rs. 600/- p. m. from 1/11/1997 to 27/12/ 2003, the date of his death. She explained the delay stating that she came to know of the benefit available to her husband only, recently, from a friend of her husband. The o. A. was resisted by the writ petitioners mainly raising two grounds. The first ground was delay, laches and limitation. It was averred that the application was hopelessly barred by limitation. Since the husband of the applicant lost his right owing to delay and laches, the same cannot be claimed by his legal heir, it was contended. On merit it was submitted that the railways have issued a clarificatory order dated 13. 11. 1998, as per which, employees who voluntarily retired from Railways were not eligible for the aforementioned benefit.

(3.) THE C. A. T. , after hearing both sides, overruled both the contentions of the respondent and allowed the O. A. by Ext. P4 order. Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext. P4.