Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 467 (GAU)

Jabeen Fatima v. Union of India

2019-04-10

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.S.BOPANNA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Chauhan and Mr. P. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India accepts notice for Respondents No.1 to 5. Registry to indicate the name accordingly. Considering the nature of the dispute, notice to Respondent No.6 is unnecessary at this point and, accordingly, dispensed. 3. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) in O.A. No.040/00195/2017. The petitioner herein was before the CAT seeking disbursement of the family pension and such other dues in view of death of her husband while in service on 4.5.2015. In the said proceedings, the Respondent No.6 had also staked a claim contending that she is also the wife of the deceased employee. In the proceedings before the CAT, since an indication was made therein that the parties would amicably settle the matter, the CAT, on taking note of the same, has disposed of the application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the proposal indicated in the proceedings before the CAT is that the petitioner being the first wife, she and her minor child would together take two-third of the share of the financial benefits including the family pension and the remaining one-third was agreed to be paid to the minor son of the second wife of the deceased husband. It is his contention that though such proposal was made relating to the settlement, the same has not been clearly indicated in the order. In that circumstance, she is before this Court. 5. In a matter of the present nature where the CAT has taken note of the proposal of amicable settlement and disposed of the application, a consideration of the same in the writ petition of the present nature would not arise as the judicial review would limit itself to the decision taken on merits. 5. In a matter of the present nature where the CAT has taken note of the proposal of amicable settlement and disposed of the application, a consideration of the same in the writ petition of the present nature would not arise as the judicial review would limit itself to the decision taken on merits. However, having taken note of the contentions as put forth and since it is further taken note that the CAT has merely recorded that there would be amicable settlement whereunder the minor son of the second wife would be entitled to a share and, in the circumstance, where the learned counsel for the petitioner has indicated that such agreement was to allow payment of one-third of the total amount, such proposal may be submitted to the official respondents. Only in respect of the same, if the Respondent No.6 raises any objection and there is an impediment for the employer to disburse the same in terms of the proposal made by the petitioner, appropriate endorsement to be issued to the petitioner so that petitioner could re-approach the CAT in terms thereof by seeking review of the order dated 11.07.2018 or by an independent application seeking appropriate orders in such application. 6. In terms of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of.