Counsel for the applicant present and files written arguments.  The Written arguments were taken into record.

2.    Proxy counsel for the Respondents present and states that as per the available information in the Department, the name of the applicant was not entered in the service record through it was there in the medical records as well as in the records of issue of free Railway Passes.   

3.    Counsel for the applicant also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam Vs. Suruttayan Alias Andali, decided on 29.11.1991, wherein based on co-habitation, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that, ' they lived together as Husband and Wife for a long period'.  The Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the above mentioned case, took into consideration the provisions under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and set aside the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

4.   The learned Standing Counsel for Respondents also brought to the notice of this Tribunal that WP No.29584/2011 was closed on 21.01.2016 stating that, 'the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal to the petitioner for redressal of her grievance' and produced copy of the order and the same is placed on record.

   5.   In view of the question of law, the matter is referred to Division Bench.  Post the case before the Division Bench as and when constituted.