Litigants must first approach the appropriate Tribunal for disputes concerning pension and retirement benefits, as direct petitions to the High Court are not permissible without exhausting Tribunal remedies.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. A. Gayan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the family pension and retirement benefits of Late Atiquz Zaman was apportioned thereby entitling the petitioner to 1/3rd of the pensionary retirement benefits and 2/3rd to the respondent No.6.

3. This Court duly takes note of that the jurisdiction in respect to the dispute raised in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. It is of vital importance also to note that the respondent No.6 had initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench claiming family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, benefit of GIS and other retiral benefits wherein the petitioner duly participated. The said proceedings was registered and numbered as Original Application No.040/00305/2019. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide an order dated 22.04.2024 directed the respondent No.4 herein to reconsider the case of both the parties taking into account the service book and disburse the family pension as well as the retiral benefits to the respondent No.6 in the light of the Service Rules of the Postal Department and communicate their decision by way of the reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 22.04.2024.

4. This Court further takes note of that in the said proceedings before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was duly represented and her counsel had submitted that the petitioner is ready to accept 1/3rd of the retiral benefits as per the Rules. Pursuant to the said order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, the impugned order was passed on 03.09.2024 whereby 2/3rd of the pensionary benefits have been accorded to the respondent No.6 and 1/3rd to the petitioner.

5. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others , 1997 (3) SCC 261 wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph No.93 categorically held that the Tribunals continue to act as the only Court of the first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted. It was clarified that it would not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Court even in cases where they questioned the vires of statutory legislation (except as mentioned where legislations which create the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Paragraph No.93 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:

“93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will co