GEETA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Union of India, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent nos. 4 and 5.

(2.) The widow of Late Anil Kumar Prasad, who is the petitioner in the present writ application, was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 193 of 2014. She prayed for a direction upon the Rajendra Memorial Research Institute of Medical Sciences (RMRIMS), Patna for grant of retiral benefits and family pension which the husband of the petitioner was entitled to. However, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. application on the ground that since the husband of the petitioner was an employee of the Canteen, which was run by the Canteen Committee and not departmentally, therefore, there was no right to claim retiral benefits or family pension.

(3.) The writ, therefore, has been filed assailing the order of the Tribunal primarily on the ground that the Tribunal has not been able to appreciate the factual aspect of the matter in true perspective and in fact serious error has been committed by the Tribunal in not only rejecting the O.A. but even in the review application when certain documents, which supported the case of the petitioner, were brought to their notice.