Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Hasna Banu vs R Kumar on 11 March, 2019
1 cpc. 350.00007.2014 with o.a. 350.01357.2010
' CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. CPC. 350/00007/2014 Dato of order: II' Pi*
(O.A. 350/01357/2010)
Present Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Smt. Hasna Banu,
Wife of Md. Jamaluddin,
C/o. Md. Jargis Mondal,
Village & Post Office - Joykrjshnapur,
Police Station -?Rampurhat,
Districtl f
tM
■%
.. Applicanti^t %
O # \
%
if
r
^
%
*+rr%
\X 1
f f ^ m
1' ^IrvicS^hfeug^Jh'e^G^er^TMa^ger,
f / y *4 ^
%
%&
J
4m, 1'S:
'^SS'hS %
■ i- i.
!#■
•J*.
■i®'JKT
f 1
f 2.
f "■35®"
I
!
& (• Ea%^^y|A ^.1
t Sealdefhg|iiyjfion| i?1
i:
• 4 €
./^Sea]dfeh. /WX /
%
&
X f / ' j?-' , ■*'/. '*i. &
\^3./The Divisional Railway Manager,
\ £
,1 \ "E^istetn Railway,\ ' / ££
■.■y
, XSeald^p^visi^n Sealdah;-.^ ^ ^*
%
Calcutta - 700 027. •. Yi rf*'-
' ,tr
'-iu Respondents
And
In the matter of:-
f.
Smt. Hasna Banu,
Wife of Md. Jamaluddin,
C/o. Md. Jargis Mondal,
Village & Post Office - Joykrishnapur,
Police Station - Rampurhat,
District - Birbhum,
Pin-731224.
.. Applicant
2 cpc. 350.00007.2014 with o.a. 350.01357.2010
r VERSUS-
Mp. rtavi ttumap,
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway,
Sealdah Division,
Sealdah.
Contemnor/Respondent No. 2
For the Petitioner Mr. U.K. De, Counsel
Mr. P.C. Das, Counsel V,
.w r.'-J
r-
For the Respondents ^NlrP.B. Mukherjee,fCdunsel K,
'•5^ ^ ' ■»?
%
%
%
&
Per Dr. Nan^dita Chatteri^eSAdaiinistrati^e Member. %
.'vt.? 't Y, i] %
ThisiCPC arises&ut oflllegfed^'o^ation^Whe orders of this ffiSunefedated
w 11 ~ 1
"ill
15.1p.20l2jn O.A. N^350/046S>^i^||ti^peFativesp^tion of th||aid coders
^ iW 1
of*. Trtgj.l omd ,,.d,
"ft7 The - applicafei? ^t*libeH[y/to detail representation to authorities
cdhsjdering his case fof^feasefef settlement diDes andjalso indicate abdukstatusiof the
'■^review petition along witft*cpp$bf tine decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court inlteview
petition. The resp^ent^ate%s!d^ on the applicants
representation, if^any^twhlGh cah"b'ei;'sijbrhitted withih^aa'perioti df%15 days arid take a
decision as perrruIes^within|a period of 3. months frofn the'dateypf such representation
and comrnuni(:atef.the deeislbn so taken to the applicant# ' y.\> #'
' ^ . ■ \ ' .. ' / /
2: The "Tactual, background ^-of^the^-Ofiginal^ Application ^is that the
V-
s»
/. f - J >. -vr r- _ & A
applicant/petitioner, claiming to^ibe ,'tbe widow of ,an ex^eWiployee of the
respondent authoritiesi^had approached-theTespondents in January, 1989 for
settlement of her dues along with the death certificate as well as the kabulnama
. (as- proof of her marriage with the deceased employee). As the authorities failed
to respond, the applicant/petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court in a Writ
Petition being C.p. No. 10975(W) of 1992 which was disposed of on 6.7.92 with
the following directions:-
"Considering all the aspects, this writ petition is disposed of by commanding the
respondents to settle the dues and release the same as admissible within a period of 2
months from the date of communication of this order."
3 cpc. 350.00007.2014 with o.a. 350.01357.2010
That, although an application for modification of the said order dated
6.7.92 was made before the Hon'ble High Court, no decision was received on the
same and, in the meanwhile, the Central Administrative Tribunal ■••umod
jurisdiction in matters relating to the respondent authorities. The said modification
application, having become otiose, was no longer pursued, and the
applicant/petitioner preferred an O.A. No. 350/01375/2010 before the Tribunal
which was disposed of by the above mentioned orders dated 15.10.2012.
3. The alleged contemnors, per contra, would furnish a speaking order issued
on 30.10.2014 in compliance to the orders of the Tribunal dated 15.10.2012 in
the above mentioned O.A: which is reproduced below in Verbatims
- EASTERN RAILWAY
No. E-18(TR)/Court Case/1357/2010 . Sealdah,-Dated: 30.10.2014
. . ,r . 'r
Smt. Hasnabanu
Vill. & P.6. - Jaykrishnapur
P.S.RampurhatfDistrict- Birbhum-,
Pin-731224. /
r >
. r--
i: ; ;i
--r.c • SPEAKING'ORDER
" .*'■ i- V; ' 1:
. i ■ .•
Sub: O.A. No. 1357 of 2010, Smt: Hasnabanu v. UOI &£fs. f ' Ref; Certified Ucopy of order of 0:A. No. 1357 of 2010 dt. 15.10.2012. ■ / Hon'ble- Central Administrative Tribunal,-.' Calcutta Bench-in its/order dt. 15.10.2012 in'O.A. NpSl 357 of 2010 was pleased lo' direct the - respondents to take appropriate'action.o'n the applicant's representation-if any, which can be submitted within a period of 15 days and take a decision.as per rules within a period of 3 months from the date of such representation and communicate the decision so taken to the applicant.
In compliance; the applicant preferred representation dated 4.12.20102 which was received by this office on 10..1_2.2012.
In terms of the order,-the .respondent shall have to dispose the representation. Accordingly I being respondent No. 2 have examined the content of the representation as well as consulted relevant departmental file of papers.
It is the case of the applicant that she was not paid the settlement dues and pensionary benefits on the demise of Md. Jamaluddin on 10.11.1988 who was an employee working as Electrical Fitter at Sonarpur EMU Car Shed under Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Sealdah.
Record reveals that claim of Smt. Hasnabanu could not be settled due to non recognition of her heirship on the ground of divorce with the employee (subsequently deceased).
The applicant was requested to attend his office for appearing in personal hearing scheduled on 15.3.2013 along with necessary relied upon documents in her support as legal heir of the deceased employee but the applicant did not attend this office on that date. Subsequently, the applicant appeared in the personal hearing on 18.6.2013 held in this office.
4 cpc. 350.00007.2014 with o.a. 350.01357.2010 The applicant though stated in the subject O.A. as well as in the aforesaid representation that Smt. Fazlima Khatun expired in the year 1999 but she produced Photostat copy of the death certificate of Smt. Fazlima Khatun certifying date of death on 22.4.2000 at the time of personal hearing in this ernee tan On scrutiny of the records available in this office it reveals that Smt. Hasnabanu was divorce'd on 28.12.1987 by her husband by oral Talak followed by affirmation through affidavit on 4.1.1988 before Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rampurhat, Birbhum.
The applicant suppressed this fact of divorce in the subject O.A. She also suppressed this fact in her representation dated 4.12.2012 as well as during personal hearing held in this office on 18,6.2013.
In view of the overall consideration, it reveals that the applicant is not legal heir of the said deceased employee. As such, the applicant is not eligible to get the settlement dues and pensionary benefits on demise of Md. Jamaluddin, the concerned employee.
Hence, I have no option but to reject the claim of the applicant.
(U. Lahiri) Sr. Divl. Personnel Officer *:■ / 1 Eastern Railway, Sealdah '' *1 Respondent-No. 2"
From the said sp'eakihg,prder,.the following transpires: 't • i. 5 (0 That, the-claim of the'applicaht could not be settled as her heirship j.
' could not be re'cognizeion the'-grourid of-her divorce with the ex-
! employee, solemnized by an oral talaq followed by an affirmation by an affidavit dated 4.1.1988. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Gfass^Rampurhat, Bifbhum j ::
. j: t,'
}
•' ' . ' " v- -
7 .
(ii) The applicant suppressed the fact of her divorce in the O.A. No.
1357 of 2010.
,7'
(iii) The applicant was given a personal hearing.
(iv) A death certificate of one Fazlima Khatun, purportedly the first wife
of the ex-employee, dated 22.4.2000, was produced at the time of personal hearing by the applicant and r.
(v) , Being a divorcee from the year 1987/1988, the applicant's claim for settlement dues does not arise.
4. The Tribunal's role in the instant CPC is confined to examination of the issue as to whether the orders of the Tribunal dated 15.10.2012 have been complied with by the alleged contemnors. « 5 cpc. 350.00007.2014 with o.a. 350.01357.2010 We decipher as follows:-
(a)The Tribunal gave the applicant/petitioner liberty to make a detailed representation to the authorities for considering her case for refease of settlement dues and also to indicate the status of the Review Petition along with decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in the Review Petition.
(b)The Tribunal further directed the respondents to take appropriate action on the petitioner's representation and to decide as per rules within a 4 specific time-frame %ncKfp |om^uhipteihe^decisio.h6 to the applicant.
The petitionerTdiasniake a representation to the^utlaorities^o 4.12.2012 in O'- #5 % which she>has aSmitted that the^mo^iflclitibh^Rlicatidn before the Hbn'ble High 'f 1 ^ \ Court had become otiosetme.aning tfeer;feb^ that iLwiil^erve no ppqticaftpurpose .TV 3 ft or result, j ,fcf ^ % l TtPksponde||awto5^^^^3kifl9|)rder re@ing!their inability t^ilease 0f heri|orc| with the ex-employee as early|as jn^W.^na, thatvth%ex-|fnployee pasbed away on %./ f } Jr ^ | '7 j? s*V.- $ ■J %.
the Hon'ble Higfv.CBurt-,in its orders dated 6t7^ff9&2, had\commanded the < -V' ,S\ ) / respondents to1;seftl6Uhe dues,.and to release the"7 same-,Sy"as .admissible", and, "s ,JV '• ■ , '.V '• ■ it - ait.
\ ./•- ;;i. ' l/ hence, it was^he prertogativeA6f;the,respondent'a'uthdrities^6 decide the claim of ■ %S.^. ' 1 *-■.} -f1 r • r* j--** J}"
the petitioner as admissible^insterms of their rules.^r (<-
During hearing, the L9Counsel.f^rthf.spatitibher vociferously argues that the registered copy of the Talaqnama furnished by the respondent authorities is a nullity and does not refer to any authenticated evidence of talaq.
In contempt application^the role of the Tribunal is limited to examining as to whether there is any violation of the orders of the Tribunal dated 15.10.2012. In our considered view, with the issue of the speaking order, the alleged contemnors have substantively complied with the orders of the Tribunal and hence, the CPC deserves to be dropped.
i V ;
/
6 • cpc. 350.00007.2014 with o.a. 350.01357.2010 Liberty is, however, granted to the petitionee to eonk relief by eatebiiohine fU.-
her case on the basis of a valid marriage with the ex-employee of the respondent authorities and to claim settlement dues on the basis of the same.
5. Hence, the CPC is dropped. Notices issued, if any, are discharged.
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Bane'rjee)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
* /
* /r-
SP
r •i'
!
*
<«
4.^ V
hrOf
a
•» f
>
■r.t
V.
f
W
■ .
r-.
^-5
4
J J*
.1
4 •«i i ■
i
1-
<(
f
f.