KUMARI LAXMI PATRA @ KUMARI LAXMI PATRO, DAUGHTER OF LATE LAPUA, EX Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, GARDEN REACH, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner, who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), has prayed for quashing of order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Patna Bench), Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 240 of 2011 (R), whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the respondent - Railway was not found tenable and as such, the decision of the respondents rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been interfered with.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner's father while working as FM - I under CCC(Loco)/Bondamunda was found unfit in A1, A2, A3, B1 and B2 medical category, but was found medically fit in C1 and C2 category with glasses. As such, the petitioner's father was screened for alternative job and was offered the alternative job of Bearer . However, the petitioner's father refused to accept the said alternative job and instead of the same, he requested for acceptance of his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.08.1987. As per the petitioner, her father's request for voluntary retirement was turned down by the respondent - Railway authorities on the ground that he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. Subsequently, her father expired on 28.04.1993. Her mother had already died before the said date. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.95,040.00 as her pension for the period from 28.04.1993 to 27.04.1999 and thereafter, she was paid an amount of Rs.35,994/ - for the period from 28.04.1999 to 31.01.2001. She was also paid Rs.10,541/ - in respect of gratuity and on later date, an amount of Rs.1,28,130/ - was also paid to her. So far as the period from 02.08.1987 to 27.04.1993 (i.e., the period during which the petitioner's father remained invalid till his death) is concerned, the amount was also subsequently sanctioned in favour of the petitioner being the lawful claimant. However, as per the petitioner, she was not paid family pension from Feb., 2001 to 05.09.2007, though from 2007 onwards, she has again been paid family pension by the respondent - Railway authorities.

(3.) The petitioner by filing the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal primarily sought the following two reliefs: