THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.8162 of 2004 Date of Order: 08-02-2010 Between: Kum. K.Anjali minor rep. by guardian, D.V.V.Satyanarayana. ..Petitioner And 1. General Manager, SCR, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.8162 of 2004 Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 10-10-2003, fixing the family pension payable to the petitioner at Rs.1,180/- in relation to each of her parents with effect from 01-01- 1996, and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to revise two family pensions payable to the petitioner each at Rs.1,275/- in relation to each of her parents with effect from 01-01-1996 and to pay the consequential arrears with interest. The facts which are not disputed briefly summarized are as under: The petitioner filed O.A.No.1575 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad branch for setting aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent in SCR/BZA/12250, dated 18-02-2002 in issuing consolidated Family Pension Order No.5904410984 dated 18-02-2002 to the disadvantage of the petitioner and for a direction to the respondents to re-issue two Family Pension Orders separately or issue Family Pension Order fixing the family pension payable in relation to the parents of the petitioner independently as per the amounts claimed in O.A. and to pay the amounts of arrears including medical allowance with interest etc. Petitioner’s father–K.Ramakrishna, who worked as Gangman, died on 28-08-1988 while he was in service and the mother of the petitioner, Smt. K.Dhanamma, who was appointed on compassionate grounds as Sweeper, died on 19-11-1994. Since both of the parents of the petitioner are railway employees, as per Rule 75(11) of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short “the Rules”), she is eligible for two family pensions, each in relation to each parent, independently. Claiming that she is eligible two family pensions at Rs.375/-each upto 31-12-1995 and at Rs.1,275/- each with effect from 01-01-1996 as revised by the V Central Pay Commission until she attains the age of 25 years or gets marriage whichever is earlier the above O.A. was filed. The Tribunal by its order dated 19-08-2003 rejected the contention of the petitioner that she is eligible for two family pensions each at Rs.1,275/- totaling Rs.2,550/- from 01-01-1996 in view of sub-rule 11(a)& (b) of Rule 75 of the Rules and in view of para 5.1 of Office Memorandum dated 27-10-1997 and disposed of the O.A. with a direction to the respondents to rectify the mistakes committed as mentioned in para-8 of its order wherein it was held that the petitioner is entitled to ordinary family pension at minimum of Rs.375/- in relation to both her parents from 29-08-1995 to 31-12-1995 and from 01-01-1996 to 08-06-2004. Insofar as the maximum limit of family pension is concerned, as per para 5.1 of the Railway Board Instructions dated13-01-1998 the pensioners who are in receipt of more than one pension the floor ceiling of Rs.1,275/- will apply to the total of all pensions taken together. It also enjoins that each pension will have to be consolidated separately and if total of all consolidated pensions taken together falls short of Rs.1,275/- the same has to be stepped upto Rs.1,275/- and fix the family pension accordingly within two months and communicate the said order. A further direction was issued to the respondents to pay interest at 12% per annum on the family pension received by the petitioner in relation to her deceased father from the date of her entitlement to the actual date of payment. On disposal of O.A. the third respondent through the impugned order dated 10-10-2003 stated that there is no change in the family pension paid to petitioner’s mother—Dhanamma at Rs.454/- from 30-08-1988 to 18-11-1994, family pension admissible to petitioner for the service of her father, enhanced rate revised from Rs.694/- to Rs.829/- for the period 19-11-1994 to 29-08-1995, ordinary rate revised from Rs.513/- to Rs.750/- for the period from 30-08-1995 to 31-12- 1995, ordinary rate due to consolidation as per the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission fixed the pension at Rs.1,180/- each totaling Rs.2,360/-. Questioning the same the present writ petition is filed. If the order of the Tribunal has not been complied with the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal for appropriate relief at the first instance and since the order of the Tribunal has not been challenged, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. In view of the same, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to two family pensions at Rs.1,275/- minimum from 01-01-1996 which is uniformally revised at 30% of the last pay drawn as per V Central Pay Commission cannot be gone into. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 08-02-2010 Murthy