Disposed

Smt. Shashikala Wd/O. Prabhakarrao Naik v. Union of India, Mumbai, through General Manager, Central Railway and Others

Bombay HC16 Jun 2016WP/6648/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court (Nagpur Bench), in a writ petition concerning pension benefits, directed the petitioner to file an application for review of the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment. The court granted liberty to produce documents to challenge the tribunal's interpretation of the 1989 policy decision.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file an application before Central Administrative Tribunal for review of its judgment.

Smt. Shashikala Wd/O. Prabhakarrao Naik Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1606wp6648.15

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6648 OF 2015

¶5

(Smt. Shashikala wd/o Prabhakarrao Naik vs. Union of India and others)

¶6

__________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : JUNE 16, 2016

¶8

Heard Adv. Bambal for petitioner and Adv. Suekhani holding for Adv. R.G. Agrawal for respondents.

¶9

Perused judgment delivered by Central Administrative Tribunal. Central Administrative Tribunal in paragraphs 17 and 18 has found that as per policy decision dated 12/7/1989 relied upon by the petitioner, there was no regularisation of casual labourers , but their engagement only was accepted.

¶10

Before this Court, petitioner widow has raised specific ground vide paragraph 17(III) that as per list of employees supplied to her, employees regularised were junior and had completed less number of working days than her husband. This ground has not been specifically denied by the respondents.

¶11

Adv. Bambal fairly submits that such list

¶12

1606wp6648.15

¶13

2/2

¶14

was not produced for perusal of Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶15

If this is correct and employees junior to deceased husband of petitioner were regularised, interpretation of Central Administrative Tribunal on policy decision may not be correct.

¶16

Considering the fact that widow of deceased employee is fighting for pension and other terminal benefits, we find it appropriate to grant her liberty to file necessary application with all relevant documents seeking review of the judgment.

¶17

Hence, with liberty to file appropriate application before Central Administrative Tribunal, we dispose of the writ petition. Needless to mention that all rival contentions are kept open.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

khj

Smt. Shashikala Wd/O. Prabhakarrao Naik v. Union of India, Mumbai, through General Manager, Central Railway and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashikala Wd/O. Prabhakarrao Naik v. Union of India, Mumbai, through General Manager, Central Railway and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedarnath Gangadharji Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary in Ministry of Urban Development and 2 Others

Shri Rajnish Marotrao Andhe Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resou

Dr.Premsing S/O Shivpalsingh Sayar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through

Mahatma Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Vs Union of India and Another.

Atul Anandrao Jagtap Vs the Chief Election Commissioner, and Others

Mohsin Ahmad Shah S/O Ayyub Shah Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mumbai and Another