Central Administrative Tribunal
URMILA DEVI vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 15 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA Order Sheet Item no.: 9 O.A./1132/2019 (PATNA) [ FAMILY PENSION ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 30 Order Dated: 15/10/2026 URMILA DEVI Vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri J.K. Karn.
For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri T.N. Thakur, ld. Sr. CGSC for O.P. No. 1 & 3., Shri Subodh Kumar, l/c for O.P. No. 2, 4 & 5 appearing through VC mode. Order of The Tribunal Counsel for the applicant is present physically. Counsel for O.P. No. 1 and 3 is present physically and counsel for O.P. No.2, 4 & 5 is present through VC mode. Counsel for O.P. No. 2, 4 & 5 appearing through VC mode but his voice is not clear. He is directed to argue the case on the next date of listing through physical mode. Counsel for the applicant started his argument. During the course of argument he placed reliance on Annexure-A/3 with the O.A. which says that husband of the applicant Durganand was granted temporary status provisionally as R/M. In the appointment letter, it has also been mentioned that he will be granted confirmation in R/M cadre only after verification of paid vouchers during engagement period as labour which are under enquiry by the High Power Committee. If at any stage the work diary of labour card of any candidates is found to be false/forged the R/M status shall be withdrawn and shall be liable for removal from job after observing necessary formalities. The Tribunal put a query to the counsel for the applicant that provisional status of R/M of husband of applicant was converted into confirmed R/M before his death and if he died with the status of provisionally appointed R/M then in that case whether the applicant is entitled for family pension along with retiral benefits of the deceased Durganand, the counsel for the applicant submitted that he may be given an opportunity to submit the legal position on the above point. He requested to adjourn the date. Counsel for the Opposite Parties has no objection to the prayer. Prayer of the applicant is accorded to. List the case on 03.12.2026 for further consideration. Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Binay Prasad ( ps )