G. Suramma vs Union of India and Others

S.B. Sinha, C.J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gouri Shanker Sanghi, standing Counsel for the Railways.

The question that was referred to by the Division Bench relates to the correctness and applicability of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Eluri Marthamma Vs. Divisional Railway Manager, S.C. Railway, Vijayawada Division and Others, , to the instant case, which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the said case the writ petition was allowed following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhavati Devi Vs. Union of India and others, .

In the instant case, the learned Tribunal refused to admit the original application filed by the petitioner herein for grant of family pension relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rabia Bikaner Etc 1997 (4) SLR 717.

The controversy that arises in the present case relates to the status of the petitioner herein. Unless the status of the petitioner is determined, we are of the opinion that the answer to the question of law referred to this Bench cannot be determined.

The parties have made allegations and counter allegations in the affidavits. It is the case of petitioner that the office order issued by the Assistant Engineer, Vizianagaram mentions the provident fund number allotted to the petitioner and that he was declared suitable to be regularised in the post of peon, chowkidar etc., which goes to show that he was an employee of the Railways. However, the learned standing Counsel for Railways took the stand that there are no records in the possession of the Railways to show that the husband of the petitioner herein was ever an employee of the Railways.

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that factual aspects are required to be determined at the hands of the Tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 21-6-1999 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 605 of 1999 and remit the matter back to consider and dispose of the same afresh on merits.

Mr. Gourishanker Sanghi, the learned standing Counsel states that counter-affidavit would be filed before the Tribunal within three weeks.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.