Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sheela S vs M/O Railways on 27 February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00660/2024
Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Sheela. S., aged 57 years, W/o Late G. Babu, (Retired Chief Travelling
Ticket Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division) Residing at
Sheeja Nivas, Kuthu Kallinmoodu T.C 49/383, Manacaud P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram District
2. Shibi. B.S. aged 31 years, (D/o Late G. Babu, Retired Chief Travelling
Ticket Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division), Sheeja Nivas,
Kuthu Kallinmoodu, T.C 49/383, Manacaud P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram District
-Applicants
[By Advocate: Mr. Sabu C.J.]
Versus
1. Union of India Represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of
Railways, New Delhi-110001
2. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Divisional Office, Personnel
Branch, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
3. The Assistant Divisional Personal Officer Divisional Office, Personnel
Branch, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
4. The Senior Commercial Manager, Southern Railway,
Thiruvananthapuram-14
-Respondents
[By Advocate: Ms.Thanuja Roshan George]
The application having been heard on 02.01.2026, the Tribunal on
27.02.2026 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30'
2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicants have sought the following reliefs from the respondents:
"(i) Issue an order directing the respondents to allow family pension to the first applicant forthwith in pursuance of Annexure- A11 application;
(ii) Issue an order directing the respondents to disburse a total amount Rs.17,97,828/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Ninety seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Eight Only) to the applicants being two-third portion of the DCRG and Commutation amount;
(iii) Issue an order directing the respondents to pay interest on the family pension, DCRG and commutation amount from the date of Annexure-A11 application till the realization of this amount to the applicants."
2. Applicants are the widow and daughter respectively of late G.Babu, who was a Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in Southern Railway. He had taken voluntary retirement on 30.09.2016. The relationship between the said Babu and the applicants had sored to the extent of starting litigation before the Family Court. The applicants had approached Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram with OP 2179/2016 seeking recovery of 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments, allegedly given by the parents of the 1st applicant at the time of marriage along with Rs.50,000/- as pocket money, besides past and future maintenance for the daughter and also for her marriage expenses. The said Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 3 Babu and the 2nd respondent, Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Thiruvananthapuram Division were the respondents in the O.P. Initially, even though the said Babu had entered appearance, ultimately, he was set ex-parte and Annexure-A4 judgment was passed by the Family Court granting the following decree on 25.07.2018:
"(i) 1st petitioner is entitled to recover 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs.5,75,000/- as its current market value along with Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition (09/11/2016) till the date of payment of the amount from the 1st respondent and his assets.
(ii) 1st respondent is hereby directed to pay past maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the 2 nd petitioner, for a period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of OP and future maintenance thereafter at the very same rate from the date of filing of the OP 09/11/2016.
(iii) 2nd petitioner is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10 lakh as marriage expenses together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this judgment til the entire realization thereof from the 1 st respondent.
(iv) The amount will be a charge on the petition A schedule property."
It is also seen from the records that on the following day itself, on 26.07.2018, the said Babu had moved the Family Court with an application under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC, seeking to set aside the ex-parte order.
3. While matters remaining so, the said Babu moved this Tribunal Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 4 with O.A.309/2021 contending that even though he had taken voluntary retirement on 30.09.2016, gratuity and commuted value of pension were not released to him on the pretext of the pendency of the said OP, quoting Rule 10(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. He contended that even though the O.P. was disposed of on 25.07.2018, the amounts were not released to him. The respondents gave a reply on 27.12.2017 stating that the amounts cannot be released since the O.P. was pending. When O.A.309/2021 was taken up for final hearing, it came out that the O.P. was disposed of on 25.07.2018. But the respondents pleaded ignorant about the disposal of the O.P. Then the said Babu produced a copy of the decree of the Family Court on 18.11.2021. On that basis, this Tribunal directed to release the amounts to him within a period of 30 days. It is evident that, accordingly, the amount was released on 17.11.2022.
4. But it has come out that, before releasing the amount the said Babu had passed away on 06.11.2022.
5. The applicants contend that despite passing away of the Railway pensioner, the respondents had disbursed DCRG and commuted value of pension illegally and arbitrarily, which will not amount to a valid discharge in respect of the claim of the applicants on the amount. According to them, they are having 2/3rd share in the retiral benefits. Still, without considering the Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 5 passing away of the Railway pensioner, the amount was disbursed to the bank which enabled the nominee, the mother, the other co-sharer to withdraw the entire amount without honouring the legitimate rights of the applicants.
6. Relying on Annexure-A1 marriage certificate, the 1 st applicant submits that her marriage with Babu was solemnized on 17.01.1990. Therefore, on the demise of the Railway pensioner she is entitled to get family pension. Even though representations were given, the respondents are not processing the application. According to the applicants, the respondents have put up a pre-condition that the pension will be released only after withdrawing the criminal case instituted by them against the respondents and others.
7. According to the applicants, non-granting of family pension of the 1st applicant is illegal, unfair and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Similarly, the applicants have 2/3rd right in the DCRG and commuted value of pension and non-granting of the same in their favour is also illegal, unfair and discriminatory. Similarly, it is contended that Annexure-A7 order releasing the DCRG and commuted value of pension in favour of Babu was done ignoring the Annexure-A5 application for setting aside the ex-parte order. It is a proceeding falling within the meaning of Rule 17 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, that there was suppression of material facts. Further, it is Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 6 submitted that the applicants were not parties to the Annexure-A9 proceedings before this Tribunal and such an order will not bind them. Further, it is submitted that transfer of money to the deceased as evident from Annexure-A7 is hit by Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act and is illegal. Further, the stand of the respondents that family pension shall be released only if they give up their claim over DCRG and commuted value of pension also is illegal.
8. Respondents filed reply statement seeking to dismiss the O.A., which being devoid of merits. According to them, G.Babu, retired Chief Ticket Examiner, Thiruvananthapuram had taken voluntary retirement on 30.09.2016 and had later expired. He had approached this Tribunal with O.A.309/2021 seeking to release his retirement benefits with interest at 14% per annum. Before the institution of the O.A., an amount of Rs.51,029/- towards Provident Fund, Rs.59,472/- towards Group Insurance and Rs.98,056/- towards Leave Salary were already disbursed to him. As OP 2179/2016 filed by the applicants was pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the gratuity and commuted value of pension could not be released. Thereafter, that OP was disposed of and on that lines, O.A.309/2021 was disposed of by this Tribunal under Annexure-A9 order directing to pay and disburse pensionary benefits like gratuity, commuted value of pension etc. within a Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 7 period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, as seen in Annexures-R1 and R2, amounts of Rs.14,83,299/- and 12,13,443/-, total Rs.26,96,742/-, was released to the bank account of the said Babu.
9. Railway employees' pension is disbursed through designated public sector banks, often with the option to choose a specific bank and branch. The process involves the issuance of a Pension Payment Order by the Railway administration, which is then processed by the Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO) before being sent to the chosen bank for payment. As such, the settlement benefits of the retired employee Sri.G.Babu, as directed by this Tribunal in Annexure-A9, were made through the bank that was chosen by him through Annexures-R1 and R2. Annexure-A7 letter dated 17.11.2022 was sent to him informing of the payment details in compliance with Annexure-A9 order of this Tribunal.
10. Respondents have stated that so much amounts were released to the credit of the said Babu on 17.11.2022. Thereafter, on 26.12.2022 the 2 nd respondent received Annexure-R3 order in E.A.2/2022 in E.P.20/2019 from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram restraining the 2 nd respondent from disbursing the service benefits of the deceased to any person until further orders. But before that, on 17.11.2022, so much amount was already disbursed. Thereafter, on receipt of Annexure-R4 communication dated Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 8 17.11.2022 received by the 2nd respondent only on 21.11.2022, they knew that babu had died on 06.11.2022. Even before that, an amount of Rs.26,96,742/- was transferred by the Railway authorities to his bank account, without knowing the death of Babu. Before receipt of Annexure-R4 on 21.11.2022 they were not furnished with any information about his death by any kith or kin. Thus, the amount had already been transferred to the credit of the bank and thus they discharged the liability.
11. According to the respondents, since the amounts were credited to the employee's account, further transactions are subject to the rules and procedures of the relevant bank.
12. As per the pension papers of the deceased, no family member was included warranting further action. Moreover, the application dated 27.04.2023 received from the 1st applicant for family pension has not been considered since E.A.No.5/2024 in E.P.20/2019 seeking direction to the 2 nd respondent in E.A. (2nd respondent here) for family pension and to deposit the balance settlement amount of Sri.Babu before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is still pending.
13. Further, the contention that the respondents have taken the persistent stand that the family pension will be disbursed only if the applicants relinquish their claim over the DCRG and commuted value of Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 9 pension is denied by the respondents. According to them, prayer before the multiple fora can lead to multiple complications and is to be discouraged as it can lead to conflicting judgments, abuse of the process of law and waste of judicial resources. Thus the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.
14. Repudiating the contentions in the reply statement and reiterating the earlier averments, the applicants filed rejoinder. According to them, O.A.309/2021 was filed before this Tribunal by the husband of the 1 st applicant while O.P.2179/2016 was pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which was filed on 09.11.2016 for recovery of gold ornaments, money and maintenance. The husband was set ex-parte for non- appearance. Later, by judgment dated 25.07.2018 the Family Court passed a decree, which was known to the 2nd respondent also. On 26.07.2018 itself the husband had filed an application under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order, which is also a judicial proceedings within the meaning of Rule 10(c) of the Rules, 1993. Still, the amount was deposited by the respondents on 17.11.2022. Earlier, the commuted value of pension and DCRG were not deposited on the ground of lis pendens. But there is no justification for depositing the amount during the pendency of the application for restoring the O.P. According to them, the reason for withholding the pensionary benefits existed on the date of institution of O.A.309/2021 and Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 10 also on the date of depositing the amount. But the Railway authorities very cunningly made a representation before this Tribunal that, in the light of the fact that the O.P. before the Family Court stood disposed of, there is no difficulty in releasing the gratuity and other benefits to the applicant; this was done without disclosing the judicial proceedings pending before the Family Court under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC.
15. Moreover, the applicants had also filed Execution Petition and an amount of Rs.23,92,500/- is due to them. The said Execution Petition is also a 'lis' falling under Rule 10(c) of the Rules.
16. According to them, the rule of G.Babu choosing a specific bank account and branch for effecting credit of his pensionary benefits is valid only upto his death and no transfer of money could have been made to this account after his death. Immediately upon his death the right to receive any amount due to him devolves upon his legal heirs, under the guise of giving effect to the order of this Tribunal in O.A.309/2021, the transfer of money could not have been made to that account. The option of Sri.Babu specifying a bank account for crediting his pensionary benefits during his life time ceased to exist on his death and any transfer of money to this account is hit by Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act.
17. Further, it was submitted that the sanction order was issued on Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 11 17.11.2022. Annexure-R4 indicates that on the same day communication regarding the death of Babu was given to the bank. Still, the amount was deposited and enabled others to misappropriate the money.
18. It was also submitted that the respondents could not have turned a deaf ear to the application for family pension given by the 1 st applicant, who has produced the marriage certificate as well as legal heirship certificate despite the fact that no family member was shown in the family composition of deceased Babu. According to them, everything was done by the Railways to defeat the claim of the applicants and deny them enjoying the fruits of the decree obtained from the Family Court. Annexures-R1 and R2 will not constitute a valid discharge in respect of the amounts due to the applicants, who are the legal heirs. Thus they allege a conspiracy among the Railway employees along with the mother and sisters of Babu, for which they have moved CMP 2010/2024 before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram, which is pending.
19. According to the applicants, the application for granting family pension is withheld for coercing them to withdraw the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and relinquishment of the claim over the DCRG and commuted value of pension.
20. We heard Sri.Sabu C.J., learned counsel for the applicants and Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 12 Smt.Thanuja Roshan George, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, elaborately.
21. As pointed out earlier, after passing Annexure-A9, Babu had passed away on 06.11.2022. It has come out that on the strength of the order passed by this Tribunal, amounts were released on 17.11.2022 to the bank account of Babu. Thereafter, the applicants approached the Family Court with E.P.20/2019 for execution of the decree and obtained an order of injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from disbursing the service benefits of the deceased to any person, until further orders. That order was passed on 26.12.2022.
22. Now, the applicants have approached this Tribunal aggrieved by the non-feasance on the part of the respondents in not granting family pension to the 1st applicant and also for not giving the due share of the applicants in the amounts which was granted towards gratuity and commuted value of pension of Babu.
23. As stated earlier, after passing Annexure-A9 on 17.11.2022, a total amount of Rs.26,96,742/- was deposited in the bank account of Babu. There are reasons to believe that the nominee of Babu has withdrawn the entire amount without giving the due share of the applicants, who are also his legal heirs. Mother of Babu is the other co-sharer. While the respondents say Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 13 that till the receipt of Annexure-R4 communication from the mother, which was received by them on 21.11.2022, they were not aware of the demise of Babu, that the amount of Rs.26,96,742/- was deposited in the designated bank account without knowing his demise. Had they been aware of the demise, the amount would not have been deposited in the account; they have denied the other allegations raised against them by the applicants. The applicants, on the other hand, contend that everything was done by the Railway officials hand-in-glove with the mother and other relatives of Babu for defeating the applicants. Similarly, the applicants submit that the right of the 1st applicant to get family pension is being denied and the respondents are coercing them to withdraw their claim against 2/3 rd right over the DCRG and commuted value of pension. The respondents have denied the allegations.
24. It has also come out that the applicants have already filed a criminal complaint arraying the General Manager, Southern Railway the 2 nd respondent, along with the mother and near relatives of Babu and the Manager, State Bank of India, South Paravoor as accused alleging criminal conspiracy, misappropriation of fund etc., invoking offences under Sections 120B, 403, 404 and 406 read with 34 of IPC. The Court had taken cognizance of the offence and registered a case as C.C.No.1214/2025 by the Judicial first Class Magistrate-III. It has also come out that the official respondents have Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 14 already moved Crl.M.C.No.10585/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court for quashing the proceedings against them and the High Court has granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings against the petitioners who are the General Manager, Southern Railway and the 2 nd respondent, Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Thiruvananthapuram.
25. As indicated earlier, two fold contentions have been raised here. One is the claim for grant of family pension to the 1st applicant and the second is touching the claim over the grant of 2/3rd share in the DCRG and commuted value of pension.
26. There is no doubt that the family pension is an indefeasible right of the widow of a former Railway employee. Annexure-A1 marriage certificate indicates that the marriage between the 1 st applicant and the said Babu was solemnized on 17.01.1990. Similarly, the legal heirship certificate, Annexure-A3, shows that the applicants and his mother Rajamma are the legal heirs. In fact, the right of the 1 st applicant as the widow cannot be denied by the respondents. Even though the applicants have said that such a representation and claim are being prolonged by the respondents, it is an attempt to coerce them to withdraw the claim over the DCRG and commuted value of pension and also to compel them to withdraw the criminal proceedings etc, such imputations have been denied by the respondents.
Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 15 Now, from Annexure-A1 it is clear that the 1st applicant is the wife of Babu. There is absolutely nothing to show that, that relationship stood severed. That means, the status of the 1st applicant continued at the time of demise of Babu.
27. In the decision reported in Jodh Singh v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 306], it has been made clear that family pension is admissible on account of the status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, on becoming the widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased which is devolved on his death to the widow. The Court further held that, what was not payable during life time of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. Since the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment of family pension, monetary benefit of the family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Here, the latter question does not arise. By the mere fact that the wife-hood of the 1st applicant remained and on the event of the death of Babu on 06.11.2022, the 1st applicant has become entitled to get family pension. We highlighted the above observations of the Apex Court only to assert that non- inclusion of the name of the wife in the family composition is in-
Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 16 consequential. So long as the status of the 1 st applicant as his widow is not denied, the respondents cannot deny the claim for family pension.
28. On 27.04.2023 she had submitted representation before the 2 nd respondent seeking family pension. It is evident from Annexure-A12 that the 1st applicant had submitted representation before the Prime Minister complaining that family pension was not granted to her. Annexure-A13 also shows that the matter has been processed. However, as indicated earlier, legal proceedings are pending even before the criminal Court alleging conspiracy, misappropriation etc. Whatever it may be, the status of the 1 st applicant cannot be challenged and therefore the respondents are bound to release the family pension to the 1st applicant within the shortest span of time.
29. Regarding the second aspect, we think that this Tribunal need not dilate much on this since there are disputed questions of fact. As mentioned earlier, the applicants have filed an OP before the Family Court against the said Babu seeking recovery of amounts. Later, Annexure-A4 ex-parte decree was passed, which has already been quoted supra. The Court also found that the amount will be charged on the petition A scheduled property. It is not stated as to which is the petition A scheduled property. Apparently, the amounts due to the applicants from DCRG and commuted value of pension Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 17 were not scheduled in the O.P. While so, the said Babu moved this Tribunal with O.A.309/2021, which was disposed of by one of us, Judicial Member, on 26.10.2023 directing to release the DCRG and commuted value of pension within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. While considering that petition, the Tribunal was informed that O.P. 2179/2016 stood disposed of in 2018 and there was no legal impediment in releasing the amount. It has come out that on the very next day of passing the decree by the Family Court, Babu had filed an application under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC. It is very clear from Annexure-A9 order that, that aspect was not disclosed before this Tribunal while passing the order. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant in O.A.309/2021 had submitted that Babu had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Family Court. In other words, the pendency of an application under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC was not informed to the Tribunal.
30. We are sure that late Babu was not at all serious in pursuing the Annexure-A5 petition before the Family Court. Though it was filed on 26.07.2018, no follow-up action was taken by him. In Annexure-A9, this Tribunal has noticed that copy of the decree was produced by him before the Tribunal on 18.11.2021. Secondly and more importantly, his counsel had submitted that he had not preferred any appeal against the decree. That Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 18 means, by his passive conduct, he wanted the decree become final. Even in that context, he did not disclose the pendency of the petition under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC.
31. Even otherwise, taking it for granted that such an aspect was made known, still, we are of the view that, that will not fall within the purview of doctrine of lis pendens as a petition under Rule 13 of Order IX CPC cannot be treated as a lis.
32. Any how, we need not give any opinion on such aspect, which are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of the O.A. Suffice it to say that, after the passing of Annexure-A9 order, the respondents acted swiftly and an amount of Rs.26,96,742/- was deposited in the designated account of Babu on 17.11.2022. This aspect was disclosed to the Family Court also, as seen in Annexure-A6 memo filed by the 2nd respondent in E.A.2/2022 in E.P.20/2019.
33. The respondents wanted to say that the demise of Babu was not disclosed to them till the receipt of Annexure-R4 communication from the mother on 21.11.2022. In fact, at least for the present, there is no materials before us to say that anyone had conveyed the demise of Babu to the Railway authorities prior to 21.11.2022. For the purpose it is to be stated that the amount was deposited on 17.11.2022. There are reasons to think that the amount was withdrawn by the nominee of Babu, to the total prejudice of the Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 19 applicants.
34. We cannot dispute the principles of law stated by the applicants governing the field. But, we are unable to adjudicate this aspect for reasons which are numerous. Firstly, this is not the proper forum for adjudicating on the inter-se dispute between or among the legal heirs of Babu. Secondly, the applicants have already moved the Criminal Court alleging criminal conspiracy etc. and from Annexure-A14 it appears that they have initiated legal proceedings to assert the rights of the legal nominee and the matter is pending before Courts. In the circumstances, we need not go deep into such aspects.
35. It appears from the rival contentions that immediately on deposit of the amount, the same was withdrawn by the nominee without giving the due share of the applicants, who have 2/3rd right in the amount. But it is for the applicants to agitate it before the appropriate authorities reiterating their claim, as the nominee is only a trustee who is estopped from appropriating the entire amount to the total prejudice of the applicants.
36. Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government, but right to family pension is a valuable right vested in the widow which cannot be denied. As we stated earlier, non-incorporation of the name of the 1st applicant as wife in the service records of Babu has no Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 20 legal consequences. That might have been done purposely, in the strained relationship of the parties. Any how, presently, the marriage certificate is before Tribunal; the applicants also will submit necessary documents before the respondents for processing the application for family pension. This shall be done without further loss of time. The family pension along with arrears shall be disbursed to the 1 st applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, beyond the period the amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum.
The Original Application is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
(Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30'
21
List of Annexures
Annexure-A1. True copy of the marriage certificate No. 15017/2023 of the applicant dated 18.04.2023, Annexure-A2. True copy of the death certificate Key No. D00310360- 2022110817 dated 30.11.2022.
Annexure-A3 True copy of the legal heirship certificate No.G-2 807/2023/D- DIS dated 29.03.2023 along with English translation. Annexure-A4: True copy of the order dated 25th July, 2018 in O.P No. 2179/2016 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-A5: True copy of the Interlocutory Application No.2503/2018 in O.P. No.2179 of 2016 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-A6: True copy of the memo dated 18.11.2023 filed by the Central Govt. Counsel on behalf of the second counter petitioner before the Hon'ble Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram Annexure-A7: True copy of the letter No. V/P. 626/Comml/479/2016 dated 17.11.2022 of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A8: True copy of the Provisional Pension Payment Order No.20177060400107 dated 20.07.2021 pension to the husband of the first applicant Annexure-A9: True copy of the order dated 26.10.2022 in OA 309 of 2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Annexure-A10: True copy of the proceeding of the A diary of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in IA 2503/2018 in OP 2179/2016 Annexure-A11: True copy of the application for family pension dated 27.04.2023 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-A12: True copy of the representation was made before the Hon'ble Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30' 22 Prime Minister on 24/04/2024 through the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring system submitted by the applicant. Annexure-A13: True copy of the Note No.V/P.626/Settlement/CPGRAMS/2024 dated 30.04.2024 Annexure-A14: True copy of the request regarding grievance solution on 20.05.2024 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure-R1- The true copy of Bill No: 06210922001691 dated 09.11.2022. Annexure-R2- The true copy of Bill No:06210922001692, dated 09.11.2022. Annexure-R3-The true copy order dated 26.12.2022 in E.A.No.2/2022 in E.P. No: 20/2019 Annexure-R4- The true copy of the letter dated 17.11.2022 submitted by the mother of Late Shri.G.Babu.
*************
Deepa S 2026.02.27 16:56:21+05'30'