- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record and that placed for perusal during the course of submissions, we are satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(2.) IN brief, the sum and substance of the matter could be noticed in the following: The petitioner -applicant made a prayer for ex -gratia payment under the scheme applicable to the widows of SRPF beneficiaries, which came into force in the year 1988, with the submissions that her late husband joined railway service in the year 1910 and retired in the year 1946 as Traffic Inspector in Bikaner Division of Northern Railway after putting in more than 36 years of service. Her claim having not been acceded to, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT') by filing an Original Application ('the OA) No.106/1996 which was disposed of on 21.03.1996 with directions to the respondents to take a decision on her claim by a detailed speaking order while leaving it open for her to file a fresh OA, in case so required. The claim of the petitioner was declined by the respondents under the communication dated 22.05.1996, essentially on the ground that the scheme of ex -gratia pension was applicable only to the widow whose husband had retired on superannuation as SRPF optee; and husband of the petitioner did not retire on superannuation but, in fact, he resigned from railway service on 16.09.1946. The petitioner, thereafter, moved the CAT by way of another OA (No.37/2000) alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay. The said OA was rejected by the CAT on 12.04.2000 on the ground of delay as also on merits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.04.2000, the petitioner filed a writ petition (CWP No.3174/2000), which was considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.09.2000 without notice to the other side. This Court expressed the view that the CAT was not justified in throwing out the case of the petitioner, a poor widow, on the technical ground like limitation. It appears that CAT in its order dated 12.04.2000 had taken note of stand of the respondents that husband of the petitioner had resigned from service. The observations made in this regard were not approved by this Court while observing that when the husband of the petitioner had put in about 36 years of service, it must be a case of voluntary retirement. However, even after making such observations, this Court did not consider it proper to pass the final order in the absence of other side. In an overall consideration of the matter, the order passed by the CAT on 12.04.2000 dismissing the OA was set aside; delay in filing OA was condoned and the CAT was directed to decide the OA on merits.
(3.) THE CAT, thereafter, proceeded to decide the OA by its impugned order dated 07.09.2001 finding no case in favour of the petitioner. It was, inter alia, observed that the husband of the petitioner admittedly resigned from service in the year 1946 and rather, it was a wrong statement that he was working in Northern Railway because Northern Railway had not even come into existence by the year 1946. Even on merits, with reference to the Railway Board's communication, the CAT found that the petitioner had no case because families of the deceased employees, who retired from Ex -Company/Princely State Railways before their take over, were not eligible for grant of ex -gratia payment. The CAT, inter alia, observed as under: - "4.I find from the averments made in this application that there is a clear attempt to misuse the process of the Court. As per submissions of the applicant, and the documents brought on record in support thereof, it has been stated that late Shri Deo Kishan Asopa was working on Bikaner Division of Northern Railway. This is an absolutely wrong statement made with the intention of misleading the court. Late Shri Deo Kishan Asopa had admittedly resigned from service in 1946. By that date Northern Railway had not even come into existence, and there could have been no question of the late Shri Deo Kishan Asopa being an employee of Northern Railway. The applicant had filed an OA earlier and has once again moved this Tribunal for the relief by furnishing misleading information. I am taking a serious note of this attempt on the part of the applicant and considering that she is an old lady who obviously has been ill -advised, no further adverse orders are being passed. 5. It only appears that late Shri Deo Kishan Asopa was an employee of Ex -Company Railway. It has been clarified by Railway Board vide letter dated 26.12.88 that the families of the deceased employees who retired from Ex -Company/Princely State Railway before their take over are not eligible to the grant of Ex -gratia payment. On this ground also this case is devoid of any merits, and is liable to be rejected." ;