$>' c/^^ £50 ision s§ ^°- ^'^ ^^ ^^p IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. M ia0s. /2009 PETITIONERS: I. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of communication, Postal Department, 'bak Bhawan', Sansad Marg, ^--New Delhi. 2. The Superintendent of Post Office, BilaspurDivision, Bilaspur (Chhatisgarh) Vs Smt. Devmati, w/o Late Kunjilal Yadov, aged about 75 years, resident of DA-6, Chandela Vihar, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilqspur, Disrict Bilaspur (Chhattisgargh) WRrTPETITION UNbER ARTICLE 2260F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ ../• AfMS^ ^-^er.^" RESPONDENT: HIGy^OUI OlSiSMl-l»IIIRIS6^B ^®Bil.,^RO DB: Hbn'bleiSnrNi^u^iiGiesJaNI.gEatiicfiElusEaliM? s Hon'BI^SIirFaustii^ 13rasl'tant£KuirnarrMishria Petitioners ResDondent WritPet!tioinfS.yNo.4e026f2009 Union of India andariother versus Smt. Devmati Present: •• :'":.,.; .••,.,•, /••: ,',. '::1 ::•'".'.: ' ';.;',:. :":.. :: ,':: •^.:::. - Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Standing Counsel fbr the Uhion pf .India/petitibners.^ ,•'::.-..• ••^^ "':':'''. ' " • "• Shri K.R.Nair, Gounsel for the respohdent. WritPetition underArticle.226.Gfdl'ie.©bnstituti6noflndia ORAL OfVDER •, . • • .: (Passed orr 27tl%prrl, •2010) Per f.M.QudiIusi.J.: Learnecl counsel appearing for the partiesare heard finally. 2, The petifionei's, who are the ynion 6f India and the Superiritendent 6f Post Offiee, "Bila$Fiur ©ivisic^, BilaspuR tt GhallengedtheTmpugnedordeTdated24-2-2QQ9passedbytheCentral Administratiw Tribunal in X)rigjnal^pplicati6h^o.674^QOZ allo^ the origjnal application preferred by the respondent herejn Smt, Devmati.allegedwifeofLateKunjiLalYadayandclirectingtogrant^ famHypensiQn from due datewith all cpnsequentialbenefitsinclucjing arrears:ofpay.^ensjori.etc,:.,.,^:.'._,^;':',^^/;., ,„;;,.,'',^ .A<::,. • :i-': ''°"'':'''':;''.:".-^:';':''?':;;y''';':-:''^ '•'1 3. The brief fai^s of th& case a^:that;l.ate?Kui^i 1^1 Yadavljo Pcretal Services in the year 194©:and^l(|w 30-9-1977. Hedieddn5-5-200^Wis^legP|tRatSSm^ the^rstwifeofthedee^^a^NerW^ffi^^ AfterdeathofKunjiLalYadav,their€«p9i^inIiS^ »n 17 to be widowof the deceased and applied forpaymentof family pension as per rules on 28-2-2006, which was refused. Hence, the original application was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to establish that the respondent was, in fact, widow of the deceased on the ground that in the details of family given by the deceased in the documents submitted in his department thenames of Ajay Kumar and Ku. Jamunabai are mentionedassonand daughter, respectively, whoare her children, but this detail of son and daughter did not match with the rationcard placed on record exceptto the extent of Ku. Jamunabai, as mentioned by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its order. The Central Administrative Tribunal decided the matter in favourof the respondent only on the ground that Ajay Kumar, whose date ofbirth is shownas 6-4-1972 in the details offamily,is in close proximitywith the age mentioned in the Will and the name of the respondent has been mentioned at more than one place in that Will. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal could not have ascertained . :i'....../.;,;..U^Si.-i'.^--.. i(-K!of!sw^. !;S.;^..'' the authenticity of the Will. N6 affidavit _waslfiled by the son and \). daughter of the deceased that they were born out of the wedlock of the deceased and the respondent. In fact, this is a matter to be ^ljudicated by the Civil Court by recording evidence and not by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Theref6re,'we are of the opinion that the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal treating the respondentaswidow ofthe deceased is not sustainable in the eyes of law, However, it will be.for the respondent to take recpyrse of law fpr i''u;;L N1; ariiuavii i/uas Uicu ov ini;': •-.""••' -\& getting a declaration in her;favour ffiat she is the widow of the deceased Kunji t-alYadav, son ofNankj Ram. ;'M ';''::.. :'. :'.. ' ::' 6. In the result.theimpugnedorderdated 24-2-2009 passed byWe Central Administrative Tribunal$ir] Original AppliGation No.674/2007 is '^!s,.'; • '' : -•' '-''; •:' ' • . ' • / '. ' '• set aside, However, the writ petition is disppsed pf in'view of the observation made above. TMere shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra ^Judge .*<