MARTHALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Jamir, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.N. Sarmah, learned standing counsel, Railways, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) IN a nut -shell, the case of the writ petitioner may be stated as follows :

(3.) IN the above backdrop, when I turn to the factual matrix of the present case, what attracts my attention prominently is that the annual income of the parents of the said deceased was barely Rs. 4,000 and the said deceased used to contribute, according to the averments made in the writ petition, as much as Rs. 180 per month to the petitioner's family. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not largely dependent on the income of her said deceased son and that she is not in pecuniary need. Considered thus, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner's case was fully covered by the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1939 and the denial to extend the benefit of Rule 11 to her was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, wholly illegal and unjust.