Smti Mira Rani Goala Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Heard Ms. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had assailed the order dated 04.03.2022 by which the request for raising an industrial dispute by the Rail Mazdoor Union has been rejected, but the petitioner herein would not like to pursue the instant petition.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner's husband expired on 19.03.1997 in harness as an unscreened Railway Staff. The petitioner was not granted the benefit of the family pension on the ground that the petitioner's husband was an unscreened staff of the Railways. However, in the meantime, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that the Railway Board had issued a circular on 03.09.1996 whereby 56,000 Casual Labourers were regularized. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

husband of the petitioner ought to have also been regularized at that relevant point of time, but the same was not done so. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that an employee, namely, Raj Narayan Yadav (since deceased) who was also similarly situated like the petitioner's husband, was on-Roll on 30.04.1996 and was not screened in 1996-97, but in the year 2015, the respondents in the Railway Department have retrospectively deemed that the said Raj Narayan Yadav was screened on 07.11.1997 and thereby absorbed Late Raj Narayan Yadav against the post retrospectively. On the basis thereof, the wife of Late Raj Narayan Yadav was provided family pension. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner therefore would be well advised to seek a similar treatment to the case of her husband for absorption with retrospective effect and for grant of family pension. The learned counsel further submitted that on mistaken advice, the petitioner sought for an industrial dispute resolution. In addition to that, the learned counsel submitted that the right to family pension is also a continuing right. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner therefore would like to withdraw the instant writ petition.

¶23

Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition therefore stands closed on withdrawal.

¶24

The withdrawal of the instant writ petition, however, shall

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

not preclude the petitioner to approach this Court seeking parity of her case with that of the wife of Late Raj Narayan Yadav for retrospective absorption and for family pension, if so advised.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Smti Mira Rani Goala v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Mira Rani Goala v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sar Shadullah Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sri Pranab Kumar Lahakar Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sri Rajesh Chaudhary Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Samir Baidya @ Samir Sukla Baidya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Gayatri Goala Vs the Union of India

Hazrat Ali Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.