AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
The short controversy in the matter is whether the employee (government servant) who, in the present Original Application is Respondent No. 3 can be forced to nominate his wife as a dependent in his service book. Particularly, in view of the fact that there is a divorce petition pending between the applicant and her husband.
By way of this Original Application, Smt. Anjali Devi, the applicant has sought following relief:
" i. to direct the respondents to decide the representations of the applicant within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
ii.or may pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
iii.To issue award the cost of the petition in favour applicant."
From the representation which has been preferred by the applicant, annexed at page 33 of the O.A., it is seen that the applicant has prayed to the respondents that the respondents are duty-bound to enter her name in the service book of the employee Shri Manish Kumar, who is respondent No. 3 in the present O.A. in view of the Railway Board's Circular No. 62/2005.
Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, who appears on advance notice submits that the applicant has not been a government servant (civil servant) herself and hence she cannot approach this Tribunal and the Tribunal cannot entertain the present Original Application for want of jurisdiction.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
At the outset, we find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the instant original application cannot be entertained by this Tribunal for want of jurisdiction. It is seen that the applicant does not fit into the definition of a government employee and therefore the relief prayer for by the applicant cannot be granted for want of jurisdiction. Further, it is also seen that since the respondent No. 3, who is a government employee, has himself chosen to not enter the name of his wife Smt. Anjali Devi in his service book and moreover, the husband has already moved a divorce application in the appropriate forum.
Accordingly, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage for want of jurisdiction.
There shall be no order as to costs.