{"id":229598,"date":"2006-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006"},"modified":"2016-09-07T15:33:49","modified_gmt":"2016-09-07T10:03:49","slug":"mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 21\/02\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA       \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR         \n\nWP.No.18193 OF 2001    \n\nMrs.D. Widrose                 ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   represented by its Registrar,\n   High Court Buildings,\n   Chennai 104.\n\n2. Union of India,\n   rep. by the Commissioner &amp;\n     Secretary,\n   Ministry of Railways,\n   Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,\n   New Delhi 110 001.\n\n3. The General Manager, \n   Southern Railway,\n   Park Town, Chennai 600 003.\n\n4. The Chief Engineer,\n   Integral Coach Factory,\n   Chennai 600 038.                     ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance  of  writ  of  certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the\nfirst respondent relating to order dated 25.7.2000 in Dy.No.2 172 of 2000  and\nquash  the same and direct the 2nd to 4th respondents to accord family pension\nand compassionate allowance to the petitioner with effect from 20.11.1990, the\ndate of death of the petitioners late husband.\n\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.V.  Prakash\n                Senior Advocate for\n                Mr.  Dhiravya Raj\n\n^For Respondent-1       :  Tribunal\nRespondent-2    :  Served.  No Appearance\nRespondents 3&amp;4 :  Mr.M.  Sekar  \n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by P.K.  MISRA, J) <\/p>\n<p>                Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  Petitioner is the widow of one Mr.P.A.  Widrose,  who  was<br \/>\nworking under  the fourth respondent.  A disciplinary proceeding was initiated<br \/>\nagainst the husband of the petitioner in the year 1982 on the allegation  that<br \/>\nhe  had  remained  unauthorisedly  absent  for 84 days without any sanction of<br \/>\nleave.  Such disciplinary proceeding was conducted ex-parte and ultimately, by<br \/>\norder dated 12.8.1983, the husband of the petitioner was removed from service.<br \/>\nAppeal filed by such employee was dismissed on 31.7.1984.  Thereafter, in  the<br \/>\nfurther  appeal filed in August, 1984, by the employee, no orders were passed.<br \/>\nIn the  meantime,  unfortunately,  the  husband  of  the  petitioner  died  on<br \/>\n20.11.1990.   Thereafter,  the  petitioner  made  several  representations  to<br \/>\nvarious authorities  claiming  payment  of  family  pension  or  compassionate<br \/>\nallowance  by  invoking  Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the Rules).   However,  by  communication  dated<br \/>\n25.7.1996, the  claim  of  the  widow  was  rejected.  Thereafter, the Welfare<br \/>\nOfficer issued a further order stating that the petitioner  was  not  eligible<br \/>\nfor   grant  of  family  pension  or  compassionate  allowance  or  any  other<br \/>\nassistance.  After a few more representations, the petitioner  filed  Original<br \/>\nApplication  in  Diary  No.2172  of  2000  before  the  Central Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal, which has been dismissed by the  Tribunal  only  on  the  ground  of<br \/>\nlimitation  as, according to the Tribunal, the issue related to 1983, the year<br \/>\nin which  the  husband  of  the  petitioner  was  removed  from  service  and,<br \/>\ntherefore, such  matter  cannot  be  agitated after a long lapse of time.  The<br \/>\npresent writ petition is filed for quashing such order of the Tribunal and for<br \/>\nissuing a direction to respondents  2  to  4  to  accord  family  pension  and<br \/>\ncompassionate  allowance  with  effect  from 20.11.1990, the date on which the<br \/>\nhusband of the petitioner died.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   A  counter  affidavit  has  been  filed  on   behalf   of<br \/>\nRespondents  3  and  4,  wherein, it has been indicated that family pension is<br \/>\npayable only if pension was payable to the husband.  In the present case,  the<br \/>\nhusband  having  been removed from service and being not entitled for pension,<br \/>\nthe widow cannot claim pension.  The respondents have  also  taken  the  stand<br \/>\nthat  the  provisions contained in Rule 107 giving power to relax the rules in<br \/>\ncase of undue hardship, are also not applicable to the facts  of  the  present<br \/>\ncase.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  respondents  3  &amp; 4 has<br \/>\nvehemently contended that the Rules do not permit payment of family pension or<br \/>\ncompassionate allowance.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  So far as the question of limitation is concerned, we find<br \/>\nthat the Tribunal has taken a highly technical view of the matter.  It  is  no<br \/>\ndoubt  true  that  the  husband  of the petitioner was removed from service in<br \/>\n1983, however, his appeal was pending and subsequently he  died  in  the  year<br \/>\n1990.   By  that  date,  the  appeal  of the petitioners husband had not been<br \/>\ndisposed of.  Subsequently, the petitioner had filed  several  representations<br \/>\nand  ultimately,  on  8.12.1999, the Welfare Officer communicated stating that<br \/>\npension is not payable as the husband of the petitioner had been removed  from<br \/>\nservice as  a  disciplinary  measure.  Therefore, it can be said that cause of<br \/>\naction had ultimately arisen on 8.12.1999.  Since the Original Application was<br \/>\nfiled in the year 2000, it cannot be said that the  Original  Application  was<br \/>\nbarred by  limitation.  Even assuming that the Original Application was barred<br \/>\nby limitation, the Tribunal had ample power to condone the delay in the  facts<br \/>\nand  circumstances  of  the case, particularly when the petitioner, the widow,<br \/>\nwas diligently pursuing the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Once  the  aforesaid  conclusion  is  reached,  in  normal<br \/>\ncourse,  the  matter  would have been remanded to the Tribunal for disposal on<br \/>\nmerit.  However, we desist from doing so on account of several  circumstances,<br \/>\nmore  particularly, considering the age of the present petitioner, who is aged<br \/>\nabout 78 years.  Moreover, from 1992 onwards, she is representing  to  various<br \/>\nauthorities  claiming  certain amount and in these circumstances if the matter<br \/>\nis remitted for fresh consideration, the agony  of  the  petitioner  would  be<br \/>\ncompounded further.    Since  all  the  materials  have been placed before us,<br \/>\nincluding the chart relating to payment of compassionate  allowance,  we  feel<br \/>\ninterest  of  justice would be served in disposing finally the matter on merit<br \/>\nso that the litigation would come to an end.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules,  1993  is<br \/>\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        65.  Compassionate allowance.- (1) A railway servant who is dismissed<br \/>\nor removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that  the  authority competent to dismiss or remove him from<br \/>\nservice may, if the case is deserving of  special  consideration,  sanction  a<br \/>\ncompassionate  allowance  not  exceeding  two-thirds of pension or gratuity or<br \/>\nboth which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation<br \/>\npension.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)  A  compassionate  allowance  sanctioned  under  the  proviso   to<br \/>\nsubrule(1) shall not less than three hundred seventy five rupees per mensem.<\/p>\n<p>                8.   This  rule,  obviously, gives discretion to the authority<br \/>\ncompetent to dismiss or remove  an  employee  from  service  if  the  case  is<br \/>\ndeserving  special  consideration,  to  sanction  compassionate  allowance not<br \/>\nexceeding two-third of the pension or gratuity or both which would  have  been<br \/>\nadmissible to him if the person would have retired on compensation pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   In  the present case, such discretion was available to be<br \/>\nexercised by the competent authority, namely, the  disciplinary  authority  to<br \/>\nsanction compassionate allowance as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 65.<br \/>\nIt  is no doubt true that the further appeal filed by the petitioners husband<br \/>\nwas pending.  Unfortunately such matter was not disposed of till the death  of<br \/>\nthe husband.    If  such a matter would have been taken up before the death of<br \/>\nthe husband, it would have been open to the competent authority to extend  the<br \/>\nbenefit contemplated under the proviso to Rule 65.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   Apart from Rule 65, the provisions contained in Rule 107<br \/>\nof the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, being relevant,  are  extracted<br \/>\nhereunder :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        107.   Power  to  relax.-  Where the pension sanctioning authority is<br \/>\nsatisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes  undue  hardship  in<br \/>\nany  particular  case,  that  authority,  may  for  reasons  to be recorded in<br \/>\nwriting, approach the Ministry of Railways  (Railways  Board)  for  dispensing<br \/>\nwith  or  relaxing the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to<br \/>\nsuch exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for  dealing  with<br \/>\nthe case  in  a  just and equitable manner.  The ministry of Railways (Railway<br \/>\nBoard) shall examine such case and arrange to communicate the sanction of  the<br \/>\nPresident  to  the  proposed  dispensation  or  relaxation  as it may consider<br \/>\nnecessary keeping in view the merits of each case and keeping in view  of  any<br \/>\nother statutory provisions :\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that  no such order shall be made without concurrence of the<br \/>\nDepartment of Pensioners;  Welfare,  in  the  Ministry  of  Personnel,  Public<br \/>\nGrievances and Pensions, Government of India.<\/p>\n<p>                11.  This Rule gives ample power to the competent authority to<br \/>\nrelax  the  Rules if satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes<br \/>\nundue hardship and to deal with the case in a just and equitable manner.    In<br \/>\nnormal  course,  the  matter should be remitted to the concerned authority for<br \/>\napplying the provision of Rule 107 read with Rule 6 5.  However, for the  very<br \/>\nreasons  for  which  we  have  thought  it fit to dispose of the writ petition<br \/>\nfinally, we intend to dispose of the  matter  finally  to  avoid  any  further<br \/>\nlitigation and to avoid further hardship to the widow.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   For considering the above aspect, the ground for removal<br \/>\nis obviously to be taken into account.    The  disciplinary  authority,  which<br \/>\nconducted the  enquiry,  found that the person was unauthorisedly absent.  The<br \/>\nmaterials on record indicate that the employee was undergoing some psychiatric<br \/>\ntreatment for sometime during 1981 and obviously the absence must have been on<br \/>\naccount of such psychiatric disability.  It is not disputed that there was  no<br \/>\nallegation  of  any serious misconduct like misappropriation or dereliction of<br \/>\nduty or wilful disobedience.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  petitioners<br \/>\nhusband had  remained  unauthorisedly  absent  for 84 days.  However, there is<br \/>\nsome reason for such absence.  We have come across many cases  where  even  in<br \/>\ncase  of  unauthorised absence the Courts have interfered and have advised for<br \/>\nimposition of lesser punishment.    Even  though  in  the  present  case  such<br \/>\nquestion  does  not  arise,  the  fact  remains that removal was on account of<br \/>\nunauthorised absence and not on serious misconduct involving moral turpitude.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.  On going through the orders passed by  various  officers,<br \/>\nwe  found  that  most  of the representations were rejected on the ground that<br \/>\nRule 65 does  not  permit  such  payment.    However,  the  authorities  never<br \/>\nconsidered the question of applicability of Rule 107.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.  Keeping in view the exceptional facts of the present case<br \/>\nand  keeping  in view the fact that the employee had worked under the Railways<br \/>\nfor about 26 years and there was no complaint against him on earlier  occasion<br \/>\nand  the  helpless  ripe old widow is unable to maintain herself as she has no<br \/>\nsource of independent income, we feel interest of justice would be  served  by<br \/>\ndirecting the respondents to grant pension as per the calculation furnished by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel appearing for the respondents.  Having regard to all these<br \/>\naspects,  we  feel that the amount would be payable from the date on which the<br \/>\napplication was made before the Tribunal.  This direction may be complied with<br \/>\nwithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt  of  a  copy  of  this<br \/>\norder.   The  amount  payable  till  the  end  of  February, 2006 amounting to<br \/>\nRs.1,37,031\/- shall be paid within the aforesaid period.  The  amount  payable<br \/>\nfrom  the  month of March, 2006 shall be payable as and when such amount falls<br \/>\ndue.  Keeping in view the fact that the order  has  been  passed  on  peculiar<br \/>\nfacts  and  circumstances  of the case, this would not be a precedent in other<br \/>\ncases.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.   With  the above directions, the writ petition is allowed<br \/>\nin part.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>dpk <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  Central Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\nrepresented by its Registrar,<br \/>\nHigh Court Buildings,<br \/>\nChennai 104.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Union of India,<br \/>\nrep.  by the Commissioner &amp;<br \/>\nSecretary,<br \/>\nMinistry of Railways,<br \/>\nRailway Board, Rail Bhavan,<br \/>\nNew Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The General Manager,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway,<br \/>\nPark Town, Chennai 600 003.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Chief Engineer,<br \/>\nIntegral Coach Factory,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR WP.No.18193 OF 2001 Mrs.D. Widrose .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Central Administrative Tribunal, represented by its Registrar, High Court [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229598","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-07T10:03:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T10:03:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1693,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-07T10:03:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-07T10:03:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T10:03:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006"},"wordCount":1693,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006","name":"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-07T10:03:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-d-widrose-vs-central-administrative-tribunal-on-21-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.D. Widrose vs Central Administrative Tribunal on 21 February, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229598","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=229598"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229598\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}