Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010147272024 2026:GAU-AS:1202 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3781/2024 PUTUL DEVI WIFE OF LATE AMRIT CHANDRA NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUSHALNAGAR, BAMUNIMAIDAM, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781021, ALSO AT LOKRA, BARNAGAR, KAMRUP, ASSAM- 781366 VERSUS BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL BHAWAN BUILDING, ANANDA RAM BARUAH ROAD, PAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM- 781001 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BSNL BHAWAN BUILDING ANANDA RAM BARUAH ROAD PAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADM) BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BSNL BHAWAN BUILDING ANANDA RAM BARUAH ROAD PAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADM) Page No.# 2/5 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BSNL BHAWAN BUILDING ANANDA RAM BARUAH ROAD PAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M) ASSAM- 781001 5:SRI AMARJYOTI NATH SON OF LATE AMRIT CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF GORESWAR LOKRA BARNAGAR BARDANGRIKUCHI KAMRUP ASSAM- 781366 6:SRI BIMALJYOTI NATH SON OF LATE AMRIT CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF LOKRA BARNAGAR KAMRUP ASSAM- 781366 7:SRI DURLOVJYOTI NATH SON OF LATE AMRIT CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF LOKRA BARNAGAR KAMRUP ASSAM- 781366 8:SRI DEEPJYOTIJYOTI NATH SON OF LATE AMRIT CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF LOKRA BARNAGAR KAMRUP ASSAM- 78136 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. G Kaushik Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Pathak For respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr. D Gogoi for respondent Nos.5 to 8 Page No.# 3/5 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. G Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B Pathak, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. D Gogoi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be the wife of Lt. Amrit Chandra Nath has approached this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not paying the family pension to the petitioner. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner got married in the year 1993 after Lt. Amrit Chandra Nath had already married one Sewali Devi. The materials on record also apparently show that Sewai Devi died subsequent to the death of Lt. Amrit Chandra Nath. 3. A question arises under such circumstances as to whether the petitioner could at all be entitled to any family pension, more particularly, taking into account Section 5(i) and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which stipulates that the second marriage during the currency of the first marriage is a void marriage. 4. Be that as it may, Mr. B Pathak, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that taking into account the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of L Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of Page No.# 4/5 India & Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and more particularly, paragraph No.93 and Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 154 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Practice and Procedure Rules, 1993 and Appendix VI, this Court may not like to entertain this writ petition. 5. Taking into account the above submission, this Court finds it pertinent to reproduce paragraph 93 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of L Chandra Kumar (supra) hereinunder: 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. From a perusal of the above-quoted paragraph in the case of L Chandra Page No.# 5/5 Kumar (supra), wherein it is categorically observed that a High Court should not act as the Court of first instance in respect to a dispute which falls solely within the ambit of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. 7. Liberty, however, is given to the petitioner to approach the CAT, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant