The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order granting family pension to a widow under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The court found no illegality in the order and dismissed the petition.
None. The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order granting family pension.
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.
CWP No. 14535-CAT of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.14535-CAT of 2010 Date of decision 17 .8.2010
Union of India and another
... Petitioner
Versus
Rampyari and another
... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr.GS Bal ,Advocate for the petitioners
1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
The Union of India has filed the instant petition challenging order dated 6.4.2010 (P.3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') allowing the Original Application filed by respondent no.1 holding her entitled to family pension and allowances under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for brevity 'the Rules').
Brief facts of the case are that husband of respondent no.1 while working as Fire Man Grade “C” with the petitioner-railway met with an accident during the course of his employment and ultimately died on 11.1.1969. When no family pension or retrial benefits were paid, respondent no. 1 filed O.A. before the Tribunal seeking family pension and other admissible retrial benefits. Vide impugned order, the Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal. Rule 75 of the Rules provides that when a railway servant dies before or after completion of one year of continuous
2
CWP No. 14535-CAT of 2010
service then the family of the deceased is entitled to family pension.The Tribunal, therefore rightly directed the applicant- respondent for grant of family pension under Rule 75 of the Rules or any other provision . We find no illegality in the impugned order which may warrant admission of the petition. Dismissed.
(M.M.Kumar) Judge
17 .8.2010
(Ritu Bahri) Judge
okg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order granting family pension to the widow of a deceased railway employee under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 warranted admission of the anticipation pet
Union of India
Rampyari
M.M. Kumar
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
