IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 2142 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.890/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS:(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE O.A.) ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS,OFFICE,PARK TOWN.P.O,CHENNAI-3. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION,PALAKKAD-678002. 3. THE SR.DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678002. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): (APPLICANT & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 INT HE O.A) --------------------------------------------------------- 1. INDIRA,W/O.K.P.BALAKRISHNAN,UNNIYAMBATH HOUSE,MANJAKKAD,P.O.SHORNUR,PIN-679121. 2. SHOBA,C/O.LAKSHMI,BEHIND AYYAPPA TEMPLE, MELEPPURAM OLD COLONY,OLAVAKKODE,PALAKKAD, PIN-678002. 3. SREEJITH,S/O.SHOBHA(AGED 16 YEARS), (MINOR REPRESENTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT MOTHER SOBHA) C/O.LAKSHMI,BEHIND AYYAPPA TEMPLE,MELEPPURAM OLD COLONY,OLAVAKKODE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678002. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT) 2142/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A. 890/2009 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO. 890/2009 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.2.2011 IN O.A. NO. 890/2009 OF CAT/ERNAKULAM. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. knc/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C.A.T.) No. 2142 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioner is the Railways which has filed this original petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T.), directing the petitioners to give family pension to the first respondent who is found to be the eligible widow of the deceased employee by the CA.T. Petitioners' grievance is that the dispute between respondents 1 and 2 is pending before the civil court at the appellate stage and if the civil court decree gets reversed in appeal, the present order of the C.A.T. based on original decree may not sustain. We do not think there is any need for the petitioners to worry about the order of the C.A.T. If respondents 2 and 3 have any grievance, it is for them to challenge the order of the C.A.T. and ensure that their interest are protected. We therefore, close this original petition by observing that Railway will only follow the orders obtained by respondents 1 and 2 in regard to their inter party dispute. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-