Applicant may file comprehensive representation seeking extraordinary family pension.

The applicant, Smt. Sushila Devi, is the widow of the deceased employee, Late Mr. Dharamvir Singh, who was a Sub-Inspector in the CBI.

She invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicant sought various reliefs from the respondents, including the grant of Extraordinary Family Pension, ex-gratia lump sum compensation, and other special benefits admissible in cases of death in service.

The applicant's counsel submitted that previous representations dated 26.11.2025 did not inadvertently mention the demand relating to ex-gratia payment, and requested liberty to file a comprehensive representation.

1. Whether the reply dated 19.12.2025 issued by the Respondents should be quashed and set aside.

2. Whether the Respondents should be directed to grant and release Extraordinary Family Pension to the Applicant.

3. Whether the Respondents should be directed to grant and release ex-gratia lump sum compensation and other special benefits admissible in cases of death in service.

4. Whether the Applicant should be granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation regarding her claims.

5. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant's comprehensive representation in accordance with law.

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain applications from aggrieved persons concerning service matters.

The case also involves the application of rules and Office Memoranda related to Extraordinary Family Pension under Category 'B' deaths attributable to Government service, and ex-gratia lump sum compensation as per Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare OM No. 45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11.09.1998, and other allied instructions for death in harness/death attributable to Government service.

The Tribunal heard the parties and, with the consent of both counsels, acknowledged the applicant's request to file a more comprehensive representation.

The counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that any pending representation or a newly filed comprehensive representation would be decided expeditiously and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, decided to grant the applicant liberty to file a comprehensive representation.

This approach aligns with the principle of ensuring due process and allowing parties to present their full case before a decision is made, thereby utilizing the procedural framework under which such grievances are addressed.

The decision to dispose of the OA at the admission stage and direct the competent authority to issue a reasoned and speaking order on the representation upholds the judicial efficiency and administrative propriety.

The Tribunal granted liberty to the applicant to file a comprehensive representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider each contention of the applicant in the comprehensive representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of its receipt.

If the decision does not favor the applicant, she retains the liberty to approach an appropriate forum in accordance with the law.

The pending M.A.(s) also stood disposed of.

There was no order as to costs.