JUDGMENT 1. With the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been finally considered at this stage itself. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order dated 24.10.2013, as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 142 of 2013, which appears to be more or less an assumptive order, cannot be sustained; and the matter deserves to be restored for reconsideration by the Tribunal in accordance with law. As the matter is proposed to be restored to the file of the Tribunal for reconsideration, dilatation on all the factual and legal aspects does not appear necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant background aspects would suffice. 3. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the petitioner's husband, who was serving with the respondents as Pharmacist, expired on 11.09.2011. It appears that there were certain allegations made, suggestive of unnatural death of husband of the petitioner and the petitioner being responsible therefor. It appears further that the relatives of the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that was rejected on 06.04.2012. It has been stated that the revision petition bearing No. 241 of 2012 against such rejection order was also dismissed by the revisional court on 26.11.2013 and thereafter, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing No. 7166 of 2013 was also dismissed by this Court on 20.12.2013. 4. It appears that the petitioner, having been deprived of pensionary and other benefits after demise of her husband, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of two different Original Applications; one bearing No. 125 of 2013 and another bearing No. 142 of 2013. In the former, claim of the petitioner had been against denial of appointment on compassionate ground upon demise of her husband. It is stated in this petition and not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said Original Application No. 125 of 2013 was decided on 07.02.2014 with direction to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law. It is stated in this petition and not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said Original Application No. 125 of 2013 was decided on 07.02.2014 with direction to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law. It is also an admitted position that thereafter, on 10.04.2015, the petitioner was indeed given appointment by the concerned authority on compassionate ground on the post of lower clerk. 5. The other Original Application bearing No. 142 of 2013, on the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits and for payment of the amount of gratuity, provident fund etc., was considered and decided by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24.10.2013. The Tribunal has referred to some of the facts of the matter and then, has made cursory reference to Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act and Rule 72 of the Pension Manual, 1973 but thereafter, without any adverse finding against the petitioner and without spelling out any specific reason as to why the petitioner was to be deprived of the claimed relief, has proceeded to observe that proportionate share of the retiral dues for other members of the family of ex-employee may be paid though the share of the petitioner could be withheld. The observations and consideration of the Tribunal as occurring in the concluding paragraphs of the order impugned could be noticed as under: - "10. As mentioned by the respondents in their order dated 30th August, 2013 which is taken on record, the para 14(1) of the Pension Manual is not at all concerned with the present case. It appear that the respondents while preparing the reply, has not even applied their mind and in a very casual manner passed the order dated 30.08.2013. Even, the officer who has passed the order dated 30.8.13, has not even bothered to see that para 14 (i) of the Pension Manual deals with period of service for pensionary benefits. In the instant case, Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act also provides in regard to disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered. In the instant case, there is no FIR on record. Even the application submitted by the brother of the ex-employee under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 6.4.12. In the instant case, there is no FIR on record. Even the application submitted by the brother of the ex-employee under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 6.4.12. The bare reading of Rule 72 of the Pension Manual, 1973 provides that if a person is charged with the offence of murdering, the railway servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, his claim to receive his share of gratuity shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal case. Since the applicant is not the alone beneficiary, three more dependents are also there. As such, it would be totally unjustified on the part of the respondents not to release any amount of gratuity of retiral dues to the dependents of the ex-employee, the share of the wife can be with held and rest of the amount is liable to be paid to the other dependent members. 11. Considering averments and legal position of the matter I deem it just and proper to issue a direction upon the respondents to release the proportionate share of the retiral dues to the family members of the ex-employee within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order is produced. Since the ex-employee had already expired two years back, as such, in case the said amount is not paid within the said period, as ordered above, the respondents shall also be liable to be pay interest @ 12% per annum after the expiry of three months. Till the actual payment is made to the respondents. 12. With the above directions, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs." 6. A bare look at the order impugned makes it evident that after referring to some of the provisions of law, the Tribunal has diverted its attention to the fact that there were three more dependents of the ex-employee and then, has observed that it would be unjustified on the part of the respondents not to release any amount of gratuity and retiral dues for them, but the share of the wife could be withheld. 7. It is very difficult to appreciate as to for what reason and on what grounds the Tribunal has at all chosen to conclude that the share of the petitioner i.e., wife of the deceased was required to be withheld. 7. It is very difficult to appreciate as to for what reason and on what grounds the Tribunal has at all chosen to conclude that the share of the petitioner i.e., wife of the deceased was required to be withheld. Reference to the background aspects makes it clear that disqualification and prohibition, as envisaged by Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act and Rule 72 of the Pension Manual, cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner, particularly when it does not appear that any such case is even pending against the petitioner, what to say of any concluded finding against her. The fact of the matter on other hand remains that the very same petitioner has been accorded appointment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased husband and then, as pointed out in the writ petition and not disputed on behalf of the respondents, as on date, there does not appear to be any case of even imputations pending against the petitioner. 8. In view of what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the approach of the Tribunal in disposal of Original Application No. 142 of 2013 cannot be endorsed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and it appears just and proper that the Tribunal re-examines the matter and takes a considered decision thereupon in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition succeeds to the extent and in the manner indicated above. The impugned order dated 24.10.2013 is set aside. Original Application No. 142 of 2013 stands restored for reconsideration of the Tribunal in accordance with law. 10. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the Tribunal on 21.09.2015.