GULAB KAUR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record and that placed for perusal during the course of submissions, we are satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the sum and substance of the matter could be noticed in the following: The petitioner -applicant made a prayer for ex -gratia payment under the scheme applicable to the widows of SRPF beneficiaries, which came into force in the year 1988, with the submissions that her late husband joined railway service in the year 1910 and retired in the year 1946 as Traffic Inspector in Bikaner Division of Northern Railway after putting in more than 36 years of service. Her claim having not been acceded to, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') by filing an Original Application ('the OA) No.106/1996 which was disposed of on 21.03.1996 with directions to the respondents to take a decision on her claim by a detailed speaking order while leaving it open for her to file a fresh OA, in case so required. The claim of the petitioner was declined by the respondents under the communication dated 22.05.1996, essentially on the ground that the scheme of ex -gratia pension was applicable only to the widow whose husband had retired on superannuation as SRPF optee; and husband of the petitioner did not retire on superannuation but, in fact, he resigned from railway service on 16.09.1946. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the CAT by way of another OA (No.37/2000) alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. The said OA was rejected by the CAT on 12.04.2000 on the ground of delay as also on merits.

(3.) THE CAT, thereafter, proceeded to decide the OA by its impugned order dated 07.09.2001 finding no case in favour of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, observed that the husband of the petitioner admittedly resigned from service in the year 1946 and rather, it was a wrong statement that he was working in Northern Railway because Northern Railway had not even come into existence by the year 1946. Even on merits, with reference to the Railway Board's communication, the CAT found that the petitioner had no case because families of the deceased employees, who retired from Ex -Company/Princely State Railways before their take over, were not eligible for grant of ex -gratia payment. The CAT, inter alia, observed as under: -