SCA/5397/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5397 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to civil judge ? ========================================================= KAILASHBEN R SHAH W/O LATE RAMESHCHAND T SHAH - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR GR MALHOTRA for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR RAVI KARNAVAT for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 19/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Heard the learned advocates. SCA/5397/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT The petitioner, widow of one Rameshchandra T. Shah, former employee of the respondent – Western Railway, has preferred the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment and order dated 9th January, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Original Application No.654 of 2005 and the order dated 5th October, 2007 made on review application No.27 of 2007. The aforesaid Rameshchandra was employed as an Electrical Fitter under the Western Railways at Palanpur. After service of more than 24 years, on 4th April, 1981, the said Rameshchandra tendered resignation effective from 8th July, 1981. The said resignation was accepted with effect from 16th November, 1981. More than ten years after his resignation, in the year 1992, he filed original application No.234 of 1992 before the Tribunal. In the said application, he claimed that as his application for voluntary retirement had not been responded to, he should be treated to have continued SCA/5397/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT in service. He prayed for the benefits of continuous service. In the said application, the Tribunal allowed the said Rameshchandra to make a representation. The representation made pursuant to the said order remained undecided. The said Rameshchandra thereafter, took out Original Application No.463 of 2001 for a declaration that he had retired from service voluntarily and that he was entitled to the retiral benefits of pension, DCRG, etc. The said claim came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 27th February, 2003. The decision of the Tribunal has become final. Since the said decision, the said Rameshchandra passed away on 19th April, 2004. After the death of the said Rameshchandra, his widow – the present petitioner, took out Original Application No.654 of 2005 before the Tribunal. According to her, the deceased Rameshchandra had retired from service and was entitled to ex-gratia payment under the R.B.E. No.19/98 dated 27th January, 1998 issued by the Railway Board. The claim has been rejected by the Tribunal by impugned judgment dated SCA/5397/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT 9th January, 2007. According to the Tribunal, as the aforesaid Rameshchandra had resigned from service, he was not entitled to the benefit of ex-gratia payment under R.B.E. No.19/98. The application for review has also been rejected. Therefore, the present petition. The Railway Board has issued R.B.E. No.19/98 dated 27th January, 1998 in respect of grant of ex- gratia payment to surviving SRPF(C) retirees of the period from 1st April, 1957 to 31st December, 1985. Paragraph – 2 thereof provides that, “The ex-gratia payment is not admissible to (a) those who were dismissed/removed from service and (b) those who resigned from service.” The petitioner has now relied upon copy of a communication dated 13th October, 1981 to claim that the aforesaid Rameshchandra had applied for voluntary retirement from service. He should, therefore, be treated to have retired from service. It may be noted that the communication dated 19th November, 1981 specifically refers to acceptance of the resignation of the aforesaid Rameshchandra from service effective SCA/5397/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT from 16th November, 1981 after office hours. In Original Application No.463 of 2001 also the Tribunal did not believe that the said Rameshchandra had retired from service. It was held that the said Rameshchandra had resigned from service. The petitioner, therefore, could not have reagitated the matter. In view of the specific provision to the contrary, the petitioner's claim for ex-gratia payment under R.B.E. No.19/98 is ex-facie misconceived. It is liable to be rejected. Besides, the said Rameshchandra did not claim ex-gratia payment under the aforesaid RBE No.19/98 during his life time. The right to claim ex-gratia payment was a personal right conferred upon the surviving SRPF(C) retirees. In absence of the claim made by the aforesaid Rameshchandra, the petitioner had no locus- standi to claim such benefit. Therefore also, the claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine. Notice is discharged. [Ms. R.M.Doshit, J.] SCA/5397/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT [K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc