BHARATI CHANDRAKUMAR RAMTEKE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dtd. 20/11/2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application No.211 of 2018. By that order, the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected.

(3.) It is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail since we find that before the Tribunal the respondents had filed their reply to the Original Application on 24/10/2018. The record indicates that on the same day the proceedings were closed for passing the judgment and the impugned order was delivered on 20/11/2018. Perusal of the reply filed by the respondents before the Tribunal and especially paragraph 10 thereof indicates that the aspects stated therein have been considered by the Tribunal while denying the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension. To counter the documents filed alongwith the said reply, the petitioner seeks to rely upon fresh documents that are placed before this Court alongwith the writ petition. In this context, in Ground No.(I) of the writ petition it has been specifically stated that on 24/10/2018 the respondents filed an application for taking their reply on record before the Tribunal. The Tribunal without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to go through the said reply and counter the points raised in the reply or file rejoinder closed the proceedings for passing the final order. In paragraph 4 of the reply filed by the respondents herein there is a simple denial to the aforesaid averments. We however find that the impugned order of the Tribunal is passed on the points raised in paragraph 10 of the reply filed by the respondents before the Tribunal. The said points would require adjudication by the Tribunal after considering the reply of the petitioner to those points. Since the issue pertains to grant of family pension and the petitioner seeks to rely upon various other documents to counter the stand taken by the respondents in their reply before the Tribunal, it is found necessary to permit the petitioner to counter that material before the Tribunal itself. This would facilitate the consideration of relevant documents while considering the prayer for grant of family pension.