BILASO DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the widow of late Puttoo Lal, who while working as Water-Man at Baheri Railway Station died on 16.9.1962. The petitioner moved several applications/ representations on attaining majority by her son for his appointment on compassionate grounds as well as for payment retiral-cum-death benefits and family pension etc. to her before the Authority concerned but to no avail. Then petitioner by registered letter dated 16.1.2002 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) to the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi. Her claim for compassionate appointment of her son was denied vide letter dated 26.12.2001 on the ground that claim was highly belated but on the question of family pension and retiral-cum-death benefits she did not get any response.

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 787 of 2003, Smt Bilaso Devi v. Union of India and others, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 29th May, 2007 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of Ex-gratia pension on the basis of forms submitted by her and if admissible under the rules for payment of the same. It was also directed that this exercise may be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CAT has wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her son in place of her late husband on the ground that she had not made any claim before the respondents immediately after her son attained the age of disaction. He submits that the aforesaid observation of the CAT is against the facts and material on records as the petitioner has sent registered applications and representations starting from 30.8.1975 just after the petitioner's son attained the age of majority in the month of July, 1975 for his compassionate appointment in place of his father.