Shama Parveen, W/o Irfan Ali vs Union Of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad And Others

Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

Shri Girraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

Learned counsel for the applicant says that he has sought relief to decide the representation dated 22.02.2023 for granting family pension on account of death of Asgar Ali, who was driver in the Railway department and Grand Father of the applicant, and to direct the respondents to decide representation within a stipulated period of time. The said representation of the applicant is annexed with the OA as Annexure No. 2 (page 17 to 19).

Although the death of the deceased, as coming out from the record, is 09.12.2020 and the cause of action has arisen then. As there is some delay but considering it as a family pension and continuing cause, the delay is condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

The applicant has only prayed to decide the representation; considering the innocuous prayer of the applicant, it may not be fruitful to keep this OA pending, and hence, the OA is decided at the admission stage itself, without entering into the merits of the case, and I direct the applicant to file a fresh representation within 15 days from today annexing the earlier representation and other required documents to the competent authority amongst the respondents and the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider and decide the said representation within a period of four months time from the date of receiving the fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order. Thereafter, in two weeks the authority may make available a copy of their speaking order to the applicant. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.

As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is not relevant so the learned counsel for the applicant is directed to delete the name of respondent No. 3 from the array of the parties today in the Court itself.