ORDER: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, in OA.No.20/1248/2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the OA, filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner-applicant had prayed that she is entitled to receive family pension, as her husband had died, while in harness, on 23.07.2000. However, by the impugned order, the said OA has been dismissed. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, according to the petitioner-applicant, her husband, Shaik Jilani Basha, was working as Foreman ‘A’ with the Railways. While so working, on 23.07.2000, he died due to cancer. Therefore, in 2000, she filed a representation seeking the benefit of family pension. However, the said representation was rejected on the ground that due to the floods of 2004, the relevant service record of Mr. Basha had been lost. Subsequently, the petitioner-applicant sent a letter to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India. The Cabinet Secretary had asked for certain relevant documents to be submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner-applicant sent the seniority list of Chargeman ‘B’ as on 01.04.1976, a document which was available with the colleague of petitioner’s husband. In the said document, the petitioner’s husband was shown at Sl.No.22, and the date of induction into service was shown as 13.12.1967. She also produced the PF ledger for the years 1977 to 1979, which clearly show the balance of Rs.45,998/-. However, despite the submission of the said documents, the respondents had failed to take any action on the representation submitted by the petitioner-applicant. Therefore, the petitioner-applicant had filed an Original Application namely, OA.No.423 of 2017 before the learned Tribunal. By order dated 17.09.2018, the learned Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner in 2016, and to pass the necessary orders. However, after considering her representation, the respondents had rejected the representation ostensibly on the ground that the petitioner’s husband was removed from service on 11.08.1982. Aggrieved by the rejection of her representation, the petitioner filed the present OA, viz. OA.No.20/1248/2018. However, the said OA has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.07.2019. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection of her representation, the petitioner filed the present OA, viz. OA.No.20/1248/2018. However, the said OA has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.07.2019. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the respondents had claimed that petitioner’s husband was removed from service on 11.08.1982, they had neither filed a counter before the learned Tribunal, nor submitted any documentary evidence to buttress the said plea. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in relying on their statement, in the absence of any proof thereof. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by this Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that even while rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner, the respondents had clearly pointed out that since her husband was removed from service on 11.08.1982, she is not entitled to receive the benefit of family pension. However, the learned counsel does admit that no counter was filed by the Railways. However, she has supported the impugned order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. It is, indeed, trite to state that any fact asserted by a party, has to be proven by the said party through cogent and convincing evidence. Even if the respondents had taken the stand that the petitioner’s husband was removed from service on 11.08.1982, they had to support the said claim by producing necessary documentary evidence. Although the respondents claimed that there is a settlement register of the year 1981-1982, where the fact of the removal of petitioner’s husband had been recorded, the said relevant register was not produced before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in accepting the statement made by the respondents as a gospel truth, especially, in the absence of convincing evidence. Therefore, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is hereby allowed. The order dated 02.07.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal, is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction that the learned Tribunal should permit the respondents to file their counter, and to produce cogent evidence in support of the claim that the petitioner’s husband was removed from service on 11.08.1982. The petitioner-applicant shall be free to file a rejoinder, if necessary. The case is remanded to the learned Tribunal with the direction that the learned Tribunal should permit the respondents to file their counter, and to produce cogent evidence in support of the claim that the petitioner’s husband was removed from service on 11.08.1982. The petitioner-applicant shall be free to file a rejoinder, if necessary. Both parties shall be heard by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is further directed to decide the OA within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.