Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rizwana Praveen vs Union Of India on 19 February, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00486/2013
This the 19th day of February, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C Gupta, Member - J
Rizwana Parveen aged about 41 years W/o Modh. Saleem, R/o
Katra Wafa Beg, Chaupatiyan, Lucknow.
.
............ Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Amit Verma
VERSUS
1. Bharat Sanchan Nigam Limited, 10th Floor, Chandralok
Building, Janpath, New Delhi through its
Chairman-cum-Managing director.
2. Chief General Manager (Telecom), BSNL, U.P East Circle
Lucknow.
3. Principal General Manager (Telecom), BSNL, Telecom
District Lucknow.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Sri G.S Srivastava
O R D E R (ORAL)
Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C Gupta, Member - J By means of this O.A the applicant seeks the following reliefs:
a. To quash the impugned order dated 30.07.2013 passed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure A-1 to the O.A. b. To pay the cost of this application. c. Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also passed.
2. The impugned order which has been assailed in this O.A reads as under:
"i= la0 HkrhZ@,e&42@23@09 fnukad% 30-07-2013 lsok esa Jherh fjtokuk ijohu iRuh Lo- eks- lyhe 402@1] dVjk oQk csx] pkSifV;k] y[kuÅ fo"k;% Jherh fjtokuk ijohu iRuh Lo- lyhe dh vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij HkrhZ ds laca/k esaA d`i;k vki vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij HkrhZ ds laca/k esa vius ekeys dk lanHkZ ysaA mijksDr ekeys esa fof/kd jk; ds vuqlkj ;s fu.kZ; fy;k x;k dh vki bl ekeys esa l{ke U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls vius uke esa fHkUurk ds laca/k esa declaration in rem. As well as declaration in personam bl dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djk,a ftlls fu;qfDr ij fopkj fd;k tk ldsA l- egkizca/kd (HkrhZ)"
3. It is not in dispute that the applicant Smt. Rizwana Parveen is getting the family pension of the missing employee being the sole wife. Hence, the identity is established. When the identity of the applicant as the wife of missing employee is not disputed, under what circumstances now the department can ask for declaration in rem. It is not in dispute that the applicant is the same lady who is getting the family pension in place of the missing employee namely Mohd. Saleen
7. With the above directions, the petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R. Ramanujam) (Justice V.C. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
RK