(Reserved on 30.01.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 13 th day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Original Application No. 1374 of 2017 Smt. Suchita Devi W/o Late Shrigun Ram R/o Village Bada Post –

Indara, District – Mau.

……….. APPLICANT By Advocate: Shri Anand Prakash Pandey Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur.

2. Divisional Rail Manager Varanasi Division Varanasi, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur Zone Gorakhpur.

3. Divisional Rail Manager (Personal) Varanasi Division Varanasi, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur.

.………RESPONDENTS By Advocate: Shri S C Mishra ORDER Shri Anand Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S C Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.

2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:

“(i) To pass the order to quashing the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by respondent no . 3 Annexed with original application and further direct the respondent no 3 to provide the death benefit and family pension as well as the services due to the applicant for the death of her husband according to rules.

(ii) To pass the further direction, directing the respondent no 3 to provide the service due arrear pension and regular pension due death of her husband as per rule.

(iii) To issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to the circumstances of the case.”

3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the respondent no 3 thereby denying the claim of the applicant for death cum retiral benefits of her husband as well as family pension, who was the permanent employee of the respondents’ department and died during the service period. By way of this OA, the applicant seeks quashing of the aforesaid impugned order by directing the respondents to grant the death cum retiral benefits as well as family pension in her favour.

4. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the husband of the applicant was appointed as work charge employee in 1980. Due to satisfactory service, an order was passed by the respondents no 3 changing the cadre of the applicant as Temporary Employee on 31.05.1988 with Pay as 2500 to 3200 in pursuance of circular dated 15.02.1985 issued by the respondent no 1 and also in compliance of the notification dated 21.01.1985 issued by the Railway Board. Thus, according to order dated 31.05.1988, the applicant’s husband became a Temporary employee of the Eastern Railway Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur. On 10.10.1990, a list was published of work charge employee and Temporary Employee. In the list, the name of the applicant’s husband was mentioned at Sl No. 87. The respondents’ authority conducted the screening test of work charge employee and temporary employee on 31.03.1997 for regularizing the service and in the test, the applicant’s husband participated and was declared passed on 01.07.1997 and his name was found at Sl No 85. The applicant’s husband continued in service on the post of Gangman. Again, a screening test was conducted on 11.08.2004, the husband of the applicant also appeared and was declared successful. Thereafter, the respondent no 3 published a list of successful employees and SINGH regularized the services and fixed the pay scale as regular employees vide order dated 02.12.2004. It was further argued that the husband of the applicant died on 15.02.2009 during service period, leaving behind the applicant who had no other means of survival except the earning of her husband. The applicant submitted an application dated 25.02.2014 followed by successive representations and applications and requested to provide the family pension as well as oth