31.08.2026 Court No.13 Item No.7 AP RVW 103 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2026 Smt. Urmila Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors. Mr. Probal Kumar Halder Ms. Champa Halder Mr. S. Halder Mr. Aditya Dey … For the Review Applicant. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta Ms. Farnaz Nasim … For the Respondents. 1. Sufficient grounds are available to explain the delay of 71 days in filing the instant application of review after discovery of fresh documents. The discovery itself is the ground for the delay of 71 days in filing the application of review after the main order was passed. Hence, the delay of 71 days is condoned. 2. Review of the order dated 7th February, 2020 in WPCT 156 of 2019 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court is sought on behalf of having discovered hitherto unavailable new evidence. 3. The evidence is in the form of a letter dated 4th May, 1991 issued by the complainant Kali Prasad Pandey against Birendra Kumar Verma, District Stores Controller at the instance of one Anand Charan Verma. It was clarified that there was a money transaction between Anand Charan Verma and one Harihar Prasad. 2 The said Anand Charan Verma is stated to have paid Rs.8,000/- to Harihar Prasad pursuant to such money transaction. The allegation against Birendra Kumar Verma for taking money for getting a job for Anand Charan Verma’s son Subhash Chandra Verma is stated to be baseless. 4. This Court is of the view that the judgement and/or order dated 7th February, 2020 in WPCT 156 of 2019 was passed in a challenge to a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench dated 14th February, 2019 in OA 495 of 2017. The Tribunal had rejected a prayer for family pension on account of service of her late husband. The Tribunal found that their husband did not have sufficient tenure of seven years of service for pension. 5. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to seek review of the order dated 28th March, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 586 of 2002. By the said order, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench had directed in a challenge to departmental proceedings against the writ petitioner’s late husband that the punishment of removal mast be converted to that of compulsory retirement to entitle the writ petitioner’s late husband to pension and consequently the petitioner to family pension. 6. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek review of the order of the Tribunal dated 28th March, 2008 in 3 OA 586 of 2002, if filed within a period of 30 days from date. 7. Accordingly, RVW 103 of 2022 is disposed of. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Since Ms. Farnaz Nasim appears along with Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, sufficiently senior and is required to assist by a junior counsel, let the appointment of Ms. Farnaz Nasim be regularized by the office of the Railways. 10. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)