Skip to content


Smt. Kalpana Sorte Vs. Union of India - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
AppellantSmt. Kalpana Sorte
RespondentUnion of India
Excerpt:
.....direction. “the official respondents in their reply have taken the plea that the case of the family pension will be decided after the decision of the family court of allahabad. the divorce case pending before the family court, allahabad has since been dismissed vide their order dated 25.4.2011 and now, as admitted in their reply, the office respondents have to decide the case of family pension. in these circumstances, respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed to decide the case of family pension and other terminal benefits and make payment regarding them within a period of 120 days from the date of issuing of this order to the applicant and/or respondent no.4, in accordance with the relevant provisions of central civil services (pension) rules, 1972. i am not expressing any opinion.....
Judgment:

Writ Petition No.4517/2013 6.5.2013 Shri Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17.8.2012, Annexure P1, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby it finally disposed of the petitioner’s Original Application No.654/2009 with the following direction.

“The official respondents in their reply have taken the plea that the case of the family pension will be decided after the decision of the Family Court of Allahabad.

The divorce case pending before the Family Court, Allahabad has since been dismissed vide their order dated 25.4.2011 and now, as admitted in their reply, the office respondents have to decide the case of family pension.

In these circumstances, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to decide the case of family pension and other terminal benefits and make payment regarding them within a period of 120 days from the date of issuing of this order to the applicant and/or respondent no.4, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

I am not expressing any opinion regarding the shares of two claimants, which are to be decided as per rules by the respondents.”

It is thus clear that the claim of petitioner for family pension was not decided on merits by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal in fact left the dispute of family pension between the petitioner and respondent no.4 to be decided by respondent Nos.1,2 and 3.

And respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 have passed the order dated 6.11.2012, Annexure P19, whereby they have held that family pension shall be payable in equal shares to both petitioner and respondent no.4.

The petitioner, therefore, if aggrieved is entitled to challenge the validity of order dated 6.11.2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It is made clear that the petitioner challenges the order dated 6.11.2012, the tribunal will decide the same on merits.

With the above observation, the petition stands finally disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

AJIT SINGH) (T.K.KAUSHAL) JUDGE JUDGE ss


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //