NIKHIL KANTARAM THORAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel representing the Petitioner, Smt. Masurkar, learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Pillai, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6.

(2.) By means of this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the judgment and order dtd. 19/12/2022, passed by the Mumbai Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.754 of 2019, which was filed by Respondent No.6. By the impugned order, the Original Application filed by Respondent No.6 has been allowed in part in terms of prayer clauses 'a' and 'c' made in the Original Application which are extracted hereinbelow;

(3.) By the impugned order, prayer 'b' made before the Central Administrative Tribunal has been rejected. Further, the claim put forth by the Petitioner that he is entitled to his share of pension and gratuity has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that he had not filed any supporting documents such as ration card, nomination form, marriage certificate of his parents or even photographs or any other document to show that the Petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased employee through his mother Smt. Maya (predeceased).