IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 14379 of 2003(S) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE RAILWAY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, MADRAS. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. R.KOPPAN, RETIRED DRIVER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KAKKARAN KUNNATH HOUSE, KAKKANI, ENGINEERING COLLEGE, P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SMT.S.LAKSHMY THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 24164 OF 2003 IN OP 14379 OF 2003 DISMISSED 29.1.2008 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER MARKED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW AS ANNEXURE A9 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT CAT DATED 28.8.2002 IN OA 759 OF 2000 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. No. 14379 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. It is reported by counsel for the petitioners that first respondent is no more. First respondent at the time of filing application was a retired driver who was getting pension. O.A. was filed against reduction of pension. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed it based on another order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, which cancelled the circular issued by the Railways based on which first respondent's pension was also reduced. Counsel for the Railways submitted that the first respondent is no more and the appeal filed against the Principal Bench order of the Tribunal is pending before the Supreme Court. Obviously after the death of the first respondent wife will be paid family pension. This Court cannot decide the merits of the case, when order of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal based on which the impugned order was passed is pending before the Supreme Court. 2 Therefore we close the O.P. leaving freedom to the petitioners to challenge the Tribunal's order if required after disposal of the appeal by the Supreme Court by impleading the widow of the deceased. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3