Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Kripaben William Parmar W Rly vs M/O Railways on 21 June, 2018
: -'1 . "
, -iiimvi
. . . v v v _ ll Ww
ts
_~_,,,,,,m-..~.~\.|
A' "2
' GENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(i-02$ _,-I-"
Es'/
MUMBAI BENCH, MMMBI.
QR@I§!I_NAI- APPLIQATION 510- 342Z..2..9i8 Dated this Wednesday the 215*' day of June, 2018.
CORH2" HON'BLE SHRI R. VIJAYKUMAR, MMER (A)
- 1. KRIPABEN WILLIAM PARMAR, (wd/o Late Shri William Valji Parmar--' the Deceased Employee), Age 79 years = l0 months, (Date of Birth 5 05.02.1938), Senior Citizen. ' | 2. PRAKASH VASSUMAL PARCHANDANI, i (son of late Vassnmal D. Parchandani _ §- the deceased employee), as a legal -
" heir and representative, Age 55 years 8 months, (Date of Birth l4 04 l962)
3. RADHABAI RUPMAL DUNGH, (wd /o Rupmal Tekchand Dungh the 1 deceased Employee), Age 55 years 8 months, (Date of Birth --05.l0.l940) ' 4. GOPAL KRISHNA GoSAVI, (son of KRISHNA GOSAVI), Age: 79 years 5 months, (Date of Birth--l5.07.l938), Retired as:
'A Coach Attendant, Western Railway,- .Mumhai Division, Mumbai ...Applioant (By.Advocate Shri R.G. Walia) ' Versus l. THE UNION or INDIA, Through : General Manager, Western Railway, Headquarters' Office, Churchgate, * Mumbai 400020.
2. ' DRM [Divisional Railway Manager]/ ADRM (Additional Divisional Railway Manager) Mumbai Division, DRM's Office, Western Railway, Mumhai Central, Mumbai 400008.
3. FA&CAO (Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer)(Pension), Western Railway, DRM's Office, Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400008.
4. Chief Accounts Officer, E ' 'F J-,,a=~--e>t'Q;-ass§;§a\=§{<e?a§1evs.=av.a.-:-ax-.=:an§;11mw;; ' ;£$rfi¥fiW'§¢r;eq*==<-W - ' H a DRM's Office, Western Railway, Mumbai Central, Mumbai 400008. ...Respondents Q R D E R Shri D.N. Karande, proxy counsel appeared on behalf of Shri R.G. Walia, learned counsel for the applicant.
This case includes four applicants cnn: of which inn; seem \"5.'I'I.'.=-'-:-\ X-:-.4.-.;-_'-=.-', to fall ill one category anmi two §<',=i;;:/ 1 seem. txa fall ill a rejected .1 category anal therefore, time four cases cannot be considered together j11,a single application.
F' The learned counsel was advised to | fiae I withdraw iflnis application anui to refile in proper _form for the matter to be considered. Since the proxy counsel was not duly authorized "U3 ck) so, this Court has in) option but ix) dismiss the application vUifi1 liberty ix) file again as advised. No order as to costs.
(R.iVija§kumar) Member (A) g.m.
| T X