The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of a petitioner's application regarding a second marriage and pension entitlement because the application failed to specify the exact relief sought.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8109 of 2022 Petitioner :- Gobind Ram Bhugra Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Fa And Ceo / Administration Northern Railway , New Delhi Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Dubey,Roopani Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent.
By means of these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner bearing no.332/00042/2021 has been dismissed.
Learned Central Administrative Tribunal has, while dismissing the original application, observed that in fact the Original Application filed by the petitioner did not contain any relief.
The relief clause in the Original Application filed by the petitioner as extracted from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is quoted hereunder:-.
"8. RELIEF SOUGHT
(i) The applicant got second marriage with Pratima Bhugra, childless widow. who was residing to her inlaw's house in Moradabad for the last 11 years and was without adequate source of income.
(ii) By marrying with Mrs. Pratima Bhugra who has become companion of her husband, Sri G.R.Bhugra, enabled him to pass his remaining retired life with dignity and has become his old age companion at the age of 62 years. She has done nothing wrong. On
the other hand she has helped the Government ex-employee to pass his remaining old age life with peace.
(iii) It is not out of place to mention that by getting 2nd marriage by the applicant with Mrs. Pratima Bhugra, nobody is at loss or affects anybody of his family. She has given her affection, love to applicant's both sons and their children (grandchildren). It is also clear that Government also wants that applicant's ex-wife Mrs. Usha Bhugra's hard earned pension may please be given to the genuine person, as per rule 100 (c) (i), mentioned above.
(iv) Both working husband and wife have to work hard and have to sacrifice many things, then only they become eligible for giving their children to lead their good life and to make their bright future.
(v) Dy. CAO/G cum CPIO's letters No. 96/ADMC/17/UB dated 12.11.2020, states
"(i) In terms of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1973, payment of pension is not admissible to Sh. Deepak Bhugra.".
From a bare perusal of the afore-quoted relief clause, we are unable to decipher as to what exactly the petitioner intended by filing the Original Application.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any illegality in the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.
The writ petition is, thus, dismissed .
Order Date :- 1.12.2022 N.PAL
Digitally signed by NARESH PAL Date: 2022.12.02 12:47:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's original application by the Central Administrative Tribunal for lack of specified relief.
Gobind Ram Bhugra
Union Of India
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
