Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Smt. Sunita Wife Of Late Shri Ram Babu ... vs Panna Lal Son Of Late Shri Kadaya Ram on 10 December, 2020

Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12611/2020


Smt. Sunita Wife Of Late Shri Ram Babu Bairwa, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Maniyada, Tehsil Sikrai District Dausa,
Rajasthan. At Present Working As Booking Clerk At Gandhi Nagar
Railway Station Jaipur-302015.
                                                              ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.    Panna Lal Son Of Late Shri Kadaya Ram, Aged About 67

      Years, Resident Of Village Ramgarh Prajapal Dharm Kanta

      Near, Mandawa Road, Mahuwa, Tehsil Mahuwa, District

      Dausa-321608



2.    Boli Devi Wife Of Panna Lal, Resident Of Village Ramgarh

      Prajapal Dharm Kanta Near, Mandawa Road, Mahuwa,

      Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa-321608



3.    Pawan Kumar Son Of Panna Lal, Aged About 9 Years,

      Resident Of Village Ramgarh Prajapal Dharm Kanta Near,

      Mandawa Road, Mahuwa, Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa-

      321608



4.    Renu Bai Daughter Of Panna Lal, Aged About 16 Years,

      Resident Of Village Ramgarh Prajapal Dharm Kanta Near,

      Mandawa Road, Mahuwa, Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa-

      321608



5.    Union Of India, Through Divisional General Manager,

      Engineering Section, Western Railway, Railway Board,

      Ahmadabad, Gujrat-380001

                  (Downloaded on 14/12/2020 at 09:23:57 PM)
                                         (2 of 3)                  [CW-12611/2020]


                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deshraj Kalwania Advocate through Video Conferencing.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment / Order 10/12/2020 Petitioner has filed the petition challenging the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby, original application filed by respondents no.1 to 4 was disposed of.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order passed by the Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction and the same was liable to be set aside.

Respondents No.1 to 4 had filed original application before the Tribunal alleging that they were the family members of deceased-employee Ram Babu Bairwa, who had unfortunately died on 01.07.2009. After the death of Ram Babu Bairwa, his widow was granted employment on compassionate basis. Widow had given an undertaking that she would maintain the family members of the deceased after getting employment, but she had failed to honour the said undertaking. She had also given the undertaking that in case, she failed to maintain the family members of the deceased, she would have no objection, if she was removed from service. Service was granted to the widow as no objection certificate had been given in her favour by the other family members of the deceased.

(Downloaded on 14/12/2020 at 09:23:57 PM)

(3 of 3) [CW-12611/2020] Last paragraph of the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 reads as under:-

"In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the instant Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur, under whom the respondent no.2 (Smt. Sunita) is presently working as Booking Clerk at Gandhi Nagar Railway Station, Jaipur, to make payment of half of the monthly salary of respondent no.2 directly to applicants no.1 & 2 during their life time. The applicants no.1 & 2 shall maintain a joint account in a Nationalized Bank and supply the number of said account to General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur within a period of two weeks from today enabling him to deposit every month half of the monthly salary of respondent no.2 directly in their account. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

Thus, from perusal of the above observations made by the Tribunal, it is evident that the order was passed on the basis of consensus arrived between the parties. Since the order was passed as per the consensus arrived between the parties, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J Sanjay Kumawat-39 (Downloaded on 14/12/2020 at 09:23:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)