IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1110 of 2009 Between: A.Srinivasa Rao S/o.Late Narasing Rao Door No.49-32-17, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam-530016 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisonal Railway manager (Personal) East Coast Railway, Waltair, Visakhapatnam 2 The Chief Personel Officer, East Coast Railways B-9, Rail Vihar,Chandrasekharapur, Bhubaneswar-751023 3 The Divisional Personal Officer, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager(Personal0, Dondaparthy, Waldair 4 The Chairman, Railway Board,Railway Secretariat New Delhi .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in ordinate delay of pension application of the petitioner herein is illegal, improper unjust, contrary to law and violative of Article, 21 of the Constitution of India and it is further consequentially prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent shall dispose off the petitioner pension application. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.P.SUJATHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by A.Srinivasa Rao through the legal aid counsel assailing the action of the respondent in not granting family pension to him consequent on the death of his mother who was a pensioner. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R.S.Murthy, learned standing counsel for Indian Railways appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this matter relates to service and therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Service Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunals Act excludes the jurisdiction of any other forum or Court in relation to service matters of the employees of the Government. (Executive Engineer Irrigation vs K.Venkata Narayana, 2009 (1) ALT 71). It is beyond the pale of controversy that the mother of the petitioner was a Government servant and therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Service Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Service Tribunal. ___________ 28-01-2009 rkk