Madhabi Changmai v. The Union of India and 6 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010219802023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5805/2023o MADHABIoCHANGMAIo W/O-oLATEoKHAGENoCHANGMAI,oVILLAGE-oJEHENIAoGAON,oP.O.o SAMAGURI,oP.S.oAMGURI,oDIST.-oSIVASAGAR,oASSAM VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo6oORSo THROUGHoTHEoSECRETARY,oGOVERNMENToOFoINDIA,oMINISTRYoOFo RAILWAYoDEPARTMENT,oRAILoBHAWAN,oNEWoDELHI-o110001 2:THEoCHAIRMAN oRAILWAYoBOARD oMINISTRYoOFoRAILWAYoDEPARTMENT oRAILoBHAWAN oNEWoDELHI-o110001 3:THEoGENERALoMANAGER oNORTHoEASToFRONTIERoRAILWAY oMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-o781011 4:THEoFINANCIALoADVISOR-CUM-oCHIEFoACCOUNTSoOFFICER oNORTHoEASToFRONTIERoRAILWAY oMALIGAON oGUWAHATI-o781011 5:THEoDIVISIONALoRAILWAYoMANAGER oTINSUKIAoDIVISION oTINSUKIA oASSAM oPIN-o786125 Page No.# 2/3 6:THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRALIZED PENSION PROCESSING CENTER 3RD FLOOR SHUVAM GREENS LOKHRA CHARIALI GUWAHATI-34 7:THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA CHAPANGANI P.O. NAMATI DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN For the petitioner (s) : Mr. P.K. Gogoi, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, CGC, (Respondent nos. 1 to 5)

– BEFORE – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

19.07.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahat Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as "CAT") in Original Application No. 129/2023, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent/railways to grant for family pension has been dismissed. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to Page No.# 3/3 substantiate that her name was recorded in the service book as wife of the deceased employee. The Tribunal further observed that the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee has already received family pension and that the identity of the petitioner as wife of the deceased employee is not reflected in the service book of the deceased employee. While observing this, the Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application No. 129/2023 filed by the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the CAT, as the petitioner has failed to furnish any proof that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant