Gauhati High Court
Barikmiya Choudhury vs The Northeast Frontier Railway (Nfr) ... on 6 December, 2019
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010265142019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 8038/2019
1:BARIKMIYA CHOUDHURY
S/O. LT. SIFAT ALI CHOUDHURY, VILL. KALINAGAR PART-V, P.O.
KALINAGAR, P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
1:THE NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY (NFR) AND ANR.
TO BE REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P), N.R RAILWAY,
LUMDING DIVISION, P.O. AND P.S. LUMDING, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-
782447.
2:THE DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER
N.F. RAILWAY
LUMDING DIVISION
P.O. AND P.S. LUMDING
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM-782447
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 06-12-2019 Heard Mr. M. H. Laskar, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways.
Page No.# 2/3 The case projected by the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, late Sifat Ali Choudhury died in-harness on 28.09.2001 while he was serving as Technician Grade-III (Mason) under the respondent authorities. After death of his father, his mother Smt. Kulsuma Bibi received the family pension as per pension rules. When his mother expired on 31.01.2008 the petitioner was a minor as his date of birth is 15.04.1996. After the death of his mother, the respondent authorities vide P.P.O No. 0406021727 dated 08.12.2009 granted "Minor Pension" to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2008. Further case of the petitioner is that as per Rule 75(6)(ii) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, an un-married son of a retired/expired railway servant is eligible to receive family pension until he attains the age of 25 years. Being aggrieved by the stoppage of such family pension w.e.f. 01.04.2017, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for disbursement of family pension.
Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 reads as under -
"3(q)service matters, in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects -
i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits;
ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation;
iii) leave of any kind;
iv) disciplinary matters; or
v) any other matter whatsoever;"
A combined reading of Section 3(q) with Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 goes to show that the subject-matter of this case falls with the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In that view of the matter, liberty stands granted to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Central Administrative Tribunal.
Page No.# 3/3 With the above observations, this writ petitioner stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant