1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5290 of 2023 1 - Anwari Khatoon D/o. Late Shri Mohammad Hanif, Aged About 63 Years R/o. Ward No. 4, Ambedkar Ward, Manendragarh, District - M.C.B. (Manendragarh Chirmiri, Bharatpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Central Railway (Secr) Through Its General Manager Gm/secr's Officer Complex, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Divisional Railway Manager, Bilaspur Division, South East Central Railway Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel, Bilaspur Division, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel, Bilaspur Division, South Eastern Central Railway Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Union Of India, Ministry Of Personnel, P.G. And Department Of Pension And Pensioner's Welfare 3rd Floor Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Ms. Surbhi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 24.11.2025 1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petition itself is not maintainable, as the father of the petitioner, namely Mohd. Hanif, was working as Technician–I in the SECR Department. Therefore, the petitioner ought to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for redressal of any grievance. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not dependent upon the late employee, and no certificate of dependency has been produced. During the enquiry conducted, it was found that the petitioner was not a dependent of the deceased employee. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that she was the only dependent of the late employee. It is contended that the deceased employee had no other legal heirs, and therefore, being the sole legal heir, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under the law, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned CAT for redressal of her grievance. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha