Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 111 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Kailashi Devi

2018-01-08

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

body2018
ORDER : Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. Application No. 37/2017 The application is allowed. Delay of 75 days in filing review petition is condoned. Writ Review Petition No. 4/2017 Smt. Kailashi Devi is served but nobody appears. We have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and the railway authorities. 2. Late Shri Shanker Lal was admittedly an employee of the Railways. Claim of the Smt. Kailashi Devi before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that the first wife of Shri Shanker Lal died on 30.12.1977 when he was in service. She married Shri Shanker Lal on 08.02.1998 and on 06.08.1998 he submitted an application to the Railway Department to record her name as his wife for purposes of a Family Identity Card and Family Pass. Acting thereon, on 19.10.1998 railway authorities issued the Family Identity Card and Railway pass. She pleaded that Shri Shanker Lal died on 18.04.2007 post retirement and thus as his wife she would be entitled to family pension. 3. The railway authorities opposed the application on the plea for purposes of service record Shri Shanker Lal never declared Smt. Kailashi Devi as his wife. 4. The Tribunal allowed the claim of Smt. Kailashi Devi in view of the Family Identity Card issued by the railway authorities and Railway pass in the name of Smt. Kailashi Devi. The Tribunal directed that Smt. Kailashi Devi be paid family pension. 5. Writ petition filed by the Union of India against the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal was dismissed by this Court on 08.09.2016 for the reason the railway authorities had issued the Family Identity Card and the Railway pass were held entitled to deny status of wife of the deceased to Smt. Kailashi Devi. 6. Seeking review the review petitioner claims to be the son of Shri Shanker Lal. Though no mentioned in the review petition, it is stated at Bar that the review petitioner was born to Shanker Lal during the subsistence of his first marriage. 7. The review petitioner disputes that Smt. Kailashi Devi was married to Shanker Lal. 8. The review petitioner does claim entitlement to family pension because he was in Government service and was dependent on the deceased. 9. Learned counsel urges that the review petition has been filed lest Smt. Kailashi Devi stake a claim to the estate of Shanker Lal on the strength of the order under review. 10. 8. The review petitioner does claim entitlement to family pension because he was in Government service and was dependent on the deceased. 9. Learned counsel urges that the review petition has been filed lest Smt. Kailashi Devi stake a claim to the estate of Shanker Lal on the strength of the order under review. 10. Suffice it to state the order under review cannot bind the review petitioner for the reason he was not a party to the proceedings. Thus we dispose of the review petition clarifying that should Smt. Kailashi Devi stake a claim to the estate of Late Shri Shanker Lal, the review petitioner can contest the same by claiming to be the son of the deceased and the order under review would not operate as res-judicata. 11. The review petition is disposed of.