1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F. 2226/2009 in First Appeal No. 477/2009 1. SMT. SATYABAHAMA W/O PURUSHOTTAM REDDY AND 2 ORS R/O MOHAN NAGAR, KHALASI LINE, NAGPUR 2. KU. SWETA D/O W/O PURUSHOTTAM REDDY R/O KHALASI LINE, NAGPUR 3. DARSHINI D/O W/O PURUSHOTRAM REDDY R/O MOHAN NAGAR, KHALAI, LINE, NAGPUR .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), NAGPUR AND 3 ORS AKASHWANI CHOWK, NAGPUR 2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, AKASHWANI CHOWK, NAGPUR 3. SMT. SUBHADRABAI W/O DHARAMRAJ REDDY R/O CHALKS COLONY, KAMPTEE RD, NAGPUR 4. THE U.O.I. THR. DEPT OF POST DAK BHAWAN, NEWDELHI .. RESPONDENT/S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B. Lahiri, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Tanna h/f Mr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate, for R- 1,2 & 4. Mr. D.C. Chahande, Advocate, for respondent no.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. It is the case of the appellants that the appellant no.1 was paid family pension after the death of her husband Purushottam. The learned counsel for the appellants points 2 out that the trial Court held that the appellant no.1 did not succeed in proving that she was the wife of deceased Purushottam and strangely enough, further held that the appellant nos. 2 and 3, the children of the appellant no.1, would be entitled to the family pension till they attain majority. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter in view of Sections 14 and Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, so far as the issue of disbursement of pension is concerned, as the Central Administrative Tribunal would have jurisdiction over the said matter. The appellants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour. In any case, the respondent no.3- Subhadrabai who had filed the counter claim seeking restraint order against the appellant no.1 from receiving the family pension, would not have any right over the family pension as she is the mother of deceased Purushottam. The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 are, therefore, directed to pay the family pension to the applicants during the pendency of the present appeal. C.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. C.A. F. No. 2225/2009 May be listed for orders on 8th of October, 2009. JUDGE RMP