[2025:RJ-JP:47106-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19342/2023 Smt. Narbada Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Chandra Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Ex- Binder Vill. Ravpura Post Dhanota, Via Itawah Bhopji Distt. Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Urban Development, Department Of Printing, Government Of India Press (Bharat Sarkar Mudralya), Minto Road, New Delhi-110011. 2. Dy. Director (Administration), Directorate Of Printing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011 3. The Manager, Government Of India Press, (Bharat Sarkar Mudraliya), Minto Road, New Delhi- 110011 4. Joint Director (Technical), Directorate Of Printing, Nirman Bhawan, Government Of India Press (Bharat Sarkar Mudraliya), Minto Road, New Delhi - 110011 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Rastogi for Mr. Ankur Rastogi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 21/11/2025 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record including the order impugned herein dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Central Administration Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 833/2013. 2. Indisputably, petitioner’s husband was dismissed from service vide judgment dated 02.01.1990 during his life time, on [2025:RJ-JP:47106-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19342/2023] account of facing a conviction for offences under Sections 307, 302/34, 324 and 504 IPC. His conviction was affirmed by the High Court though the benefit of probation was extended. Thereafter, benefit of probation was extended to the other co-accused, since the petitioner’s husband had died during appeal. Thereafter, petitioner sought to challenge the order of dismissal dated 02.01.1990 by way of filing a writ petition before the High Court which was disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach before the Tribunal. In view of such liberty, petitioner filed O.A. No.601/2012, which has already been disposed of vide order dated 14.09.2012. 3. Thereafter, it appears that without accrual of any fresh or new cause of action, this second O.A. No. 833/2013 was filed by petitioner which has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order impugned herein dated 06.09.2022, on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. 4. Having perused the order impugned it has transpired that the counsel for the petitioner, during course of his arguments before the Tribunal, did not press the challenge to dismissal order and her consequential prayer for family pension and pensionary benefits rather confined the grievance of petitioner limited to the extent of non-release of the compassionate allowance already directed to pay by the respondents vide order dated 21.087.2009. 5. Since in the O.A. No. 833/2013, no grievance in respect of non-release/non-payment of the compassionate allowance pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2009 was made, no specific order was passed in respect and the O.A. was dismissed, in respect of the prayers for challenging the dismissal order of [2025:RJ-JP:47106-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19342/2023] petitioner’s husband dated 02.01.1990 as also her consequential prayer for grant of family pension and pensionary benefits. 6. Having faced with the above situation, counsel for the petitioner, does not press this writ petition and makes a prayer that the petitioner be set at liberty to take appropriate legal remedy, in case the compassionate allowance pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2009 has not been paid/released to her. 7. Without going into merits of such alternative prayer, we dispose of this writ petition as not pressed with observation that petitioner is at liberty to avail her legal rights, if survive, in respect of claims/non-payment of the compassionate allowance. 8. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/3