IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.663 of 2006 MOST.KULO DEVI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 04th September, 2008 Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme court in the case of S.K.Mastan Bee V. General Manager, South Central Railway and another, (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 184, in support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to family pension. 2. We are afraid, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Mastan Bee may not be of any help to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, in the original application being O.A.No.86/1998, the petitioner prayed for direction to the respondents for payment of family pension since her husband died on 21st September, 1985 in an accident while working as a Gangman having temporary status in the eastern railway. The original application was disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the matter of family pension to the petitioner in the light of the decision of the Supreme court rendered in - 2 - the case of Prabhavati Devi, (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 27. 3. The railway authorities considered the case of the petitioner for family pension and by a reasoned order held that she was not entitled to family pension. The petitioner was, however, given compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with interest. The petitioner made an application for contempt before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which came to be disposed of on 26th May, 2005. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. There is no challenge to the order passed by the railway authorities pursuant to the earlier order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the case of contempt is not made out, but it would open to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the railway authorities rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension. 5. The order of the Tribunal is eminently just and proper warranting no interference by us. The liberty has already been granted by the Tribunal for challenging order of the railway authorities rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension. Obviously, if such a challenge is made, it will be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. 6. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil