K. Sabitha Vs. Union of India, Represented by General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town Post, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

HON'BLE Mr. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This OA was filed by the wife of late Shri P V Manikandan, who died on 14.3.2006. It appears that Shri Manikandan's mother, Smt. K V Ammini had written a letter informing about his death to the Divisional Office, Palghat and in reply to the said letter, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Palghat sent her the Annexure A-1 letter dated 24.6.2006 stating that consequent upon the compulsory retirement of Shri Manikandan from service w.e.f. 11.1.2006, the competent authority, i.e. the Divisional Operations Manager, Palghat has sanctioned his compulsory retirement gratuity equal to 2/3 of gratuity which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. She was also informed that Shri Manikandan was not eligible for any compulsory retirement pension. The applicant has, therefore, filed this OA seeking n order quashing the said Annexure A-1 letter and an order directing the respondents to treat that Shri Manikandan has continued in service upto 14.3.2006 to grant all terminal benefits. According to the applicant she came to know about the compulsory retirement of her husband only from the aforesaid Annexure A- 1 letter. During the course of hearing of this matter in this court, a copy of the penalty advice dated 23.12.2005 was supplied to the applicant's counsel. It contained an advice to late Shri Manikandan that he could appeal against the penalty within 45 days. Thereafter, this OA was amended impugning the said penalty advice as Annexure A-3. Before she had approached this Tribunal, she had also filed the Annexure A-2 Revision Petition dated 2.7.2006 to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai as the time for filing the appeal was already over. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for parties have submitted that the aforesaid Revision Petition has not been disposed of by the Revisional Authority. We do not find any valid reason why the said Revision Petition should not have been disposed of by Revision authority as the application for revision is a statutory right. In view of the above position, before we go into the merits of the case, the Revisional Authority namely, the General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai is directed to consider the Annexure A-2 Revision Petition filed by the applicant and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While considering the aforesaid Review Petition, the Revisional Authority shall also consider the entire pleadings of this OA as additional documents for its consideration. With the aforesaid direction, this OA is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.