Allahabad High Court
SMT. SARITA DEVIversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petition was dismissed as the petitioner must approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Summary
Smt. Sarita Devi, a former railway employee, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking a revision of her pension to an extraordinary family pension (category C) at 60% of basic pay under the Railway Service (Extraordinary) Pension Rules, 1993, and challenging a rejection order dated 07-04-2026. The petition also requested a mandamus directing the respondents to issue a revised pension payment order. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appropriate forum for such a grievance is the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as the petitioner is an ex‑railway employee. The Court examined the jurisdictional issue and concluded that the High Court does not have the competence to entertain the petition. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the rejection order. The petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the CAT for relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition filed by an ex‑railway employee challenging the denial of an extraordinary family pension, or whether the matter must be filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extraordinary family pension (category C) at 60% of basic pay under the Railway Service (Extraordinary) Pension Rules, 1993.
Subjects
- pension
- extraordinary family pension
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- Central Administrative Tribunal
- railway employee
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14256 of 2026
Smt. Sarita Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Pranab
Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent-State.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the
following prayer:-
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the rejection order dated 07.04.2026 passed by
respondent no.4 (Annexure No.1 to the repetition).
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent to revise the petitioner's pension
to extraordinary family pension (category C) at 60% of basic
pay under the Railway Service (Extraordinary) Pension
Rules, 1993.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to issue a Revised
Pension Payment order P.P.O. reflecting Extraordinary
Pension at 60% of basic pay with immediate effect.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent that the petitioner has
remedy of filing the petition before the Central Administrative
Tribunal as the petitioner is an Ex-Railway Employee.
4. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere.
5. The instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the
WRIA No. 14256 of 2026
2
petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
September 16, 2026
Kumar Manish
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…