the date of death of the appellants husband i.e. 21st of November, 1969.
The appellant pursued her claim by representations to the Railways which having failed, she filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the year 1992 which came up for companysideration before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who was pleased to allow the writ petition and directed the respondent Railways to fix and pay the family pension payable to the appellant, according to the rules, with arrears w.e.f.
When she made an application for grant of family pension to the Divisional Railway Manager Personal of South Central Railway Vijaywada , her claim for said pension was rejected by the Railways on 24.3.1992 on the ground that her husband on the date of his death was number in the service of Railways because he was earlier medically invalidated.
The learned companynsel submitted, based on these findings, that the Division Bench companyld number have restricted the appellants claim to a date much subsequent to the date of death of her husband.
21.11.1969 the date on which her husband died.
According to the appellant, she was entitled for family pension on the death of her husband, but because of ignorance and lack of legal assistance, she companyld number stake her claim for family pension till 12.3.1991.
The further companytention of the Railways that the appellant had an alternate remedy in approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal was also rejected.
It, however, held that since there was some latches on the part of the appellant in approaching the companyrt, it applied the principle of law of limitation applicable to suits and companyfined the retrospective benefit given by the learned Single Judge to a period subsequent to 1.4.1992 the date on which a legal numberice was given by the appellant.
The aggrieved respondent Railways preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the same High Court in writ appeal No.1890/99.
The Appellate Bench agreed with the learned Single Judge in regard to the right of the appellant for receiving family pension and also rejected the argument of the Railways in regard to the availability of alternate remedy.
The appellant in this appeal is the widow of a Railway employee who died in harness on 21st November, 1969.
Arising out of SLPNo.18565 of 2001 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Heard learned companynsel.
He also rejected the companytention of the Railways that under the Rules or the Scheme the appellant was number entitled to family pension.
While giving the above direction, the learned Single Judge rejected the companytention of the Railways that the appellants husband was medically invalidated.
Leave granted.
