Central Administrative Tribunal
VIMALBAI GULABRAO THAKRE vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 26 October 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench Camp at Nagpur
Miscellaneous Application No. 455/2026
with
Diary No. 1027/2026(O.A.)
Date of Decision: 26th October, 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Vimalbai wd/o Gulabrao Thakre
Sonegaon Raja, Ward No. 2
Tahshil – Kamptee, P.O. – Ungaon
Nagpur – 441104
Mob: 9511240120
… Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S.V. Banerjee)
Versus
1.
Union of India,
Through G.M. S.E.C. Railway
Bilaspur- 4590004.
2.
Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer
S.E.C. Railway, Nagpur- 440001.
3.
Sr. Divisional Finance Manager
S.E.C. Railway, Nagpur- 440001
4.
Smt. Chhayabai G. Thakre
Chicholi, Ward No. 1, PO- Dahegaon Joshi Tah- Parseoni, Dist Nagpur- 441105.
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N.P. Lambat)
Rashmi
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.
ORAL ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents on application for condonation of delay.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased Gulabrao Thakre was the railway servant who retired as Gangman on 30th June, 2000 from Kamptee. Applicant claims to be his first wife. She states that the deceased Gulabrao Thakre had married the second wife during the subsistence of his marriage with the applicant. The deceased Gulabrao Thakre passed away on 14th November, 2011. After his death, his second wife made representation for getting family pension which was not granted and, therefore, she had filed OA No. 110/2017 which was disposed of with a direction to decide the representation of second wife by the name of Chhayabai. Her representation was decided and since family pension was not granted to her, she filed OA No. 70/2022 which was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 22nd March, 2024 with permission to file fresh Original Application. He submits that the said Original Application is yet not filed. Rashmi
3. He further submits that the applicant was not living with the deceased Gulabrao Thakre as the deceased Gulabrao Thakre performed second marriage. He submits that after the death of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre, second wife filed application for family pension. Applicant was not aware of her rights and, therefore, delay of 14 years has been committed in filing the OA. He submits that illiteracy is a ground for condonation of the delay. The applicant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has not placed anything on record to show that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre. He submits that the deceased Gulabrao Thakre did not mention the applicant as his legally wedded wife or otherwise. The record of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre is not available. He submits that the claim of the second wife for family pension is yet not established. Therefore, both the so-called wives of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre are in cahoot and have filed the false application just to get family pension by hook or by crook. Rashmi
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply submits that the applicant has filed a declaration form as regards her status as a legally wedded wife of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre. She has also filed one application (Annexure-A-6 colly) in which name of the applicant is mentioned as wife of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre. He also submits that at Annexure-A-7, he has produced the application submitted in Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order in which her name is shown as wife of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre.
6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for their respective parties.
7. The applicant has not produced anything on record to show that she is the legally wedded wife or otherwise of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre. The Railway Declaration Form produced at Annexure-A-6 is of no help to the applicant as her name is not mentioned in it. The details of family pension form show the name of the applicant as the wife of the deceased Gulabrao Thakre. However, it does not bear signature of anyone nor does it show that it was presented by the deceased before the competent Rashmi authority of the Railways. Similarly, the form and the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order bears thumb impression. There is no attestation as to whether it is of the applicant or someone else. Nor does it show that it was presented before the competent authority.
8. Thus, there is no record worth the name to show that the deceased was married to the applicant. In these circumstances, I find no good ground for condonation of the delay. Applicant has not made out any cause much less sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. In these circumstances, application deserves to be dismissed. Hence, MA No. 455/2026 with Diary No. 1027/2026 (OA) stands dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
(Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (J)
nk. Rashmi