IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16924 of 2007 Baso Devi wife of late Raghu, Ex-Oil Furnishing Incharge, Grade-‘B’Group ‘D’, Ex- Tecket number 1445/ Rolling Mill, Jamalpur Rly. Workshop, Eastern Rly. Jamalpur, District Munger, residing at Village- Ratanpur, P.S. Bariarpur, District-Munger - ---- Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railways, Koyalaghat, Kolkata. 2. The Chief Workshop Manager, Jamalpur- Rly. Workshop, E.Rly.,Jamalpur (Munger) 3. The Divisional Rail Manager, E.Rly.Maladah Division, Maldah (W.B). 4. The Workshop Accounts Officer, Jamalpur Railway Workshop, E.Rly. Jamalpur --- Respondents. ----------- 5. 24.2.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mrs. Parul Ranjan for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure- 6), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No. 824 of 2005 (Baso Devi Vs. The Union of India & others), whereby her claim for family pension and other consequential benefits has been rejected, and the original application has been rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents has in her well-prepared arguments taken us through the entire records and supports the impugned order. She relies on the 2 judgment reported in A.I.R. 1990 SC 1782 (Krishena Kumar Vrs. Union of India & Others). We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that the petitioner’s husband, late Raghoo, was initially appointed as Khalasi at Rolling Mill, Jamalpur Workshop, on 5.8.1938. He was promoted as Oil Furnishing In-charge. He died in course of duty by burnt injuries on 2.3.1966, at the Railway Hospital, Jamalpur. After lapse of nearly 40 (forty) years she was also granted ex-gratia payment with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondents released the benefits admissible to the late employee and payable to the petitioner in the capacity of the widow admissible under the contributory provident fund scheme. After lapse of nearly 40 (forty) years, she filed the aforesaid original application with the prayer that she should instead be given family pension admissible to her after the demise of her husband. On a consideration of the relevant materials, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the late employee had never opted for the pensionary scheme. He had instead opted for the 3 contributory provident fund scheme and the benefits have accordingly been released to the present petitioner. We do not find any reason to disagree with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)