1. It would have been appropriate if this writ petition had never been filed. The petitioner Magli Devi challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10 September, 2002 arising out of a case O.A No. 22 of 2000: Mangli Devi v. Union of India.
2. The reason why the Court has observed that it would have been appropriate that this writ petition should never have been filed is that this is not a matter which ought to be a lawyer's brief.
3. The issue as presented by the Central Administrative Tribunal is a mess of between lovers and mistresses and amorous adventures of a twice married man and woman, of retirement benefits by a person who asserts herself as a widow and claims more, a compassionate appointment from the railways. Counsel says that the petitioner is facing a counter claim from the railway administration to return what she has received.
4. The facts noticed by the Tribunal in paragraphs 2 and 4 are relevant. The Tribunal notices that the petitioner Mangli Devi was married to one Baidynath Tanti. She left him. Thereafter she married one Rajendra Tanti. She left him also because she discovered that he was already married to someone else. Thereafter, she claims a marriage to late Ram Khelawan (a railway employee) whose first wife had died. Further, the Tribunal notices that in so far as the deceased railway employee Ram Khelawan is concerned, he married the appellant when she had two husbands living and she had neither been separated nor divorced from them. The railway administration considered the claimed marriage of the deceased employee Ram Khelawan with the appellant Mangli Devi as void. The railway administration submitted before the Tribunal that any entry in the official records of the railway is on the declaration of the employee.
5. The Court would not like to interfere in this matter.
6. Dismissed.