Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the father of the writ petitioners was employee in the department of Survey of India and was holding the post of 'Khalasi'. He died on 11.11.2001 while he was in service. The petitioners' mother thereafter was given family pension and she also died on 30.05.2003. Thereafter, the petitioners were denied family pension on account of non-entry of their names in the service record as the children of the deceased-employee.

3. Hence, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (in short “CAT”) by filing O.A No. 46 of 2007. The CAT disposed of the said O.A no. 46 of 2007 with a direction to the respondents to check whether names of the appellants-writ petitioners are in the service record of the deceased-employee or not and if names are not found in the service record, then the petitioners may be directed to produce necessary succession certificate obtained from the competent Civil Court. If such succession certificate is obtained, the respondents shall consider the said certificate and shall issue necessary order in accordance with rules. After this order, passed in O.A. No. 46 of 2007 dated 23rd June, 2007, the applicants applied for succession certificate by filing Succession Case No. 41 of 2008. The applicants' said application for succession was rejected on the ground that as per Section 372(3) of the Indian Succession Act, the succession certificate can be granted in respect of debt and sureties of the deceased and in this case, there is no debt and sureties of the deceased but the arrears of pension which may accrue to the minor daughters of the deceased. The learned Sub-Judge I, Hazaribagh in Succession Case No. 41 of 2008 held that since there is no debt and sureties of the deceased question of issuing succession certificate to the applicants for the arrear amount of the pension does not arise and for that reason, the Succession Application was rejected.

4. Facing with this situation, the petitioner submitted a Review Petition before the CAT and petitioners prayed that the order dated 23rd June, 2008 passed in O.A. No. 46 of 2007 may be modified by substituting the word “family record” obtaining from the office of Circle Office, of local jurisdiction so as to the applicant may get family pension upon producing the family record from the office of the Circle Office. The review application was rejected on the ground of limitation only vide order dated 24.06.2010. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

5. From the facts referred above, it is clear that Tribunal already passed the order directing the petitioners to obtain succession certificate. The petitioners applied for the succession certificate and succession certificate was not granted by the Civil Court. However, the order passed by the Civil Court dated 19.08.2009 was appelleable order and petitioner could have challenged the said order passed by Sub-Judge I, Hazaribagh. The issue involved in the said succession case was whether the arrears of the family pension of the mother of the applicants fall within the definition of debt or not?

6. Be that as it may be, we are of the considered opinion that petitioners were rightly directed to obtain succession certificate. The issue of petitioner being successor of their mother who was getting pension and father who was employee also could have been decided in the succession case only. Therefore, even if the review petition was dismissed, we are of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by entertaining this writ petition.

7. In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the writ petitioners to challenge order dated 19.08.2009 passed in Succession Case No. 41 of 2008 passed by Sub-Judge I, Hazaribagh.

8. According to learned counsel for the writ petitioners, the age of the children of the deceased-wife of the deceased-employee was nine an