PREMILABEN B. GOHIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS RA has been filed by the applicant in the OA seeking review of the Order dated 9.4.2013 passed by this Tribunal in OA/298/2012. The said was filed by the widow of Late Shri Bachubhai, who was appointed as casual Jeep Driver in Rajkot Division. At the time of his death he was a casual Jeep Driver with temporary status. According to the applicant, the authority of the respondent No. 1 had taken all the steps to regularise his service and for that purpose he was undergone screening and medical examination in 1984. For no fault of him Shri Bachubhai was not regularised by the respondents' authority till the date of his death i.e. 19.8.1988. The applicant has filed OA praying for quashing the communication which rejected her claim for family pension and praying for to release family pension to her from the date of death of her husband with interest. The OA was dismissed by this Tribunal mainly on the ground that there was no actual regularisation of service of Late Bachubhai by the respondents Railways and hence the family pension is not eligible to the applicant.

(2.) THE applicant has come up wit this Review Application stating that the Tribunal has lost sight of and remained unconsidered of certain reliefs and important facts in the file notings and that judgment relied upon by the Tribunal in Civil Appeal No. 7145/2005 is not applicable in terms of her prayers in the OA.

(3.) THE aforesaid contentions are relating to the merit of the case. This Tribunal had already found that Shri Bachubhai was not confirmed as a regular employee till the date of his death and hence relying on the rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal in its order dated 9.4.2013 held that the applicant is not entitled to reliefs prayed for. Now the contentions that this Tribunal has not taken into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the applicant and that the Division Bench of this Tribunal ought to have heard this matter etc. cannot be agitated in this RA. This Tribunal has already recorded in the order that all the documents produced by the both sides and the decision cited by both sides have been perused and that both sides were heard in extenso.