Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.09.2001. The order was passed on an application filed by the Respondent No. 5 Smt. Shanti Devi laying claim to family pension payable to widow of Late Shri Ananda Ram after his death. Smt. Shanti Devi has filed original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to challenge the order dated 07.06.2000 wherein it is stated by the respondent that before the Railway Administrative, the deceased has mentioned amongst the name of his relatives; one Smt. Mragnayani as his wife, family pension is payable to her. Hence, claim of Shanti Devi was not acceded to. 3. In original application Smt. Shanti Devi has impleaded only Union of India and Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur as party respondents. 4. The respondents in their reply to original application have indicated that the family pension is paid to Smt. Mragnayani, whose name was mentioned as wife of deceased incumbent as per information submitted by him. 5. Notwithstanding this stand, Smt. Mragnayani was not impleaded as party before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. The Central Administrative Tribunal without taking into account this aspect of the matter by considering the submissions made by the parties before it allowed the application of Smt. Shanti Devi vide order dated 07.09.2001 and directed that family pension may be released in her favour. 7. In pursuance of said directions, Annexure-4 dated 012.2001 was issued stopping the family pension to be paid to the present petitioner Smt. Mragnayani and she was asked to deposit the amount of family pension received by her till the issuance of the said order. The order clearly spells out that the same was passed in pursuance of the directions issued by the CAT by its order dated 07.09.2001. 8. Apart from merit, this petition is primarily filed on the ground that the impugned order of Central Administrative Tribunal which has been passed without presence of the necessary party viz. Smt. Mragnayani, who was directly and adversely affected by the order of the Tribunal passed in favour of the applicant. An order without affording opportunity to person already receiving family pension suffers from patent violation of principles of natural justice and prejudicially affects the present petitioner. 9. Smt. Mragnayani, who was directly and adversely affected by the order of the Tribunal passed in favour of the applicant. An order without affording opportunity to person already receiving family pension suffers from patent violation of principles of natural justice and prejudicially affects the present petitioner. 9. We are of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioners is unexceptionable and merits acceptance and the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 Smt. Shanti Devi is that the petitioner Smt. Mragnayani, who was receiving the family pension after death of Late Anada Ram and the children born out of the said alliance are not necessary party inasmuch as they could independently maintain the original application, challenging the order Annexure-4. 10.11. We are unable to accept this submission. Neither the present petitioners nor Smt. Shanti Devi could maintain an original application challenging the order Annexure-4 without challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal in pursuance of which the Annexure-4 has been passed and without impleading each of them as party. If it is accepted that order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in absence of Smt. Mragnayani, is void ab initio and can be ignored even without challenging it. In that event also, the petition must succeed for declaring the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as void ab initio. 112. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that Smt. Mragnayani and her children were not necessary party and they can maintain an independent application in case their rights are affected cannot be accepted. 113. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order impugned passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.09.2001 is set-aside. The petitioner will be at liberty to prosecute the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal and she could make a fresh application impleading the person, who is otherwise affected. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.