Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. A. Gayan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 whereby the family pension and retirement benefits of Late Atiquz Zaman was apportioned thereby entitling the petitioner to 1/3rd of the pensionary retirement benefits and 2/3rd to the respondent No.6.

3. This Court duly takes note of that the jurisdiction in respect to the dispute raised in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. It is of vital importance also to note that the respondent No.6 had initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench claiming family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, benefit of GIS and other retiral benefits wherein the petitioner duly participated. The said proceedings was registered and numbered as Original Application No.040/00305/2019. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide an order dated 22.04.2024 directed the respondent No.4 herein to reconsider the case of both the parties taking into account the service book and disburse the family pension as well as the retiral benefits to the respondent No.6 in the light of the Service Rules of the Postal Department and communicate their decision by way of the reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order dated 22.04.2024.

4. This Court further takes note of that in the said proceedings before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner was duly represented and her counsel had submitted that the petitioner is ready to accept 1/3rd of the retiral benefits as per the Rules. Pursuant to the said order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, the impugned order was passed on 03.09.2024 whereby 2/3rd of the pensionary benefits have been accorded to the respondent No.6 and 1/3rd to the petitioner.

5. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261 wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph No.93 categorically held that the Tribunals continue to act as the only Court of the first instance in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted. It was clarified that it would not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Court even in cases where they questioned the vires of statutory legislation (except as mentioned where legislations which create the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Paragraph No.93 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:

                   “93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned.”

6. It is relevant at this stage to take note of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 whereby jurisdiction, power, and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunals have been stipulated. This Court further takes note of Rule 154 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 which stipulates that the Scrutiny Branch of the Registry shall at the time of scrutiny make classification of the cases department-wise, subject-wise and cases which are to be heard by the Single Bench. The departmentwise classification has also been mentioned in Appendix VI of the said Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993.

7. From a perusal of the Appendix VI, it is seen that the Ministry of Communications comes within the fold of the department-wise classification of cases. The Department of Post falls within the ambit of the Ministry of Communications.

8. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the petitioner without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati cannot directly approach this Court assailing the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) and more particularly at paragraph No.93 as quoted herein above.

9. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.

10. The writ petition stands dismissed.

11. The interim orders, if any, stands vacated.

12. This Court however observes before parting that as this Court is not entertaining the instant writ petition, it shall not be a bar for the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2024.