Anguri vs Union of India and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.4.2004 (Annexure P-3) as well as order dated 18.5.2004 (Annexure P-5), whereby claim of the petitioner for family pension on account of the death of her late son Sh. Suresh Kumar, was declined by the respondent authorities. Notice of motion having been issued, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents and petitioner filed her replication.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pension scheme issued vide communication dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure P-6), petitioner being the dependent parent was very much entitled for the family pension after the remarriage by Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar. He further submits that late Sh. Suresh Kumar son of the petitioner was serving in the C.R.P.F. and died on 24.5.2000. Initially, Smt. Babli Devi, who was widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar was paid family pension with effect from 25.5.2000, but Smt. Babli Devi remarried and because of that reason her family pension was stopped with effect from 22.2.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that after the remarriage by the widow Smt. Babli Devi and stoppage of her family pension with effect from 22.2.2002, nobody else except the petitioner, being dependent mother of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, came forward for claiming family pension. Petitioner also got succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction vide order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-2), which was also not in dispute. Order passed by the learned civil court vide Annexure P-2 also shows that the above said Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar was respondent No. 2 before the civil court and she filed the reply supporting the case of the petitioner stating that she had no objection, if the succession certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner only. Accordingly, order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the learned civil court issuing the succession certificate in favour of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under these circumstances, passing of impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-5, was result of a misconceived approach adopted by the authorities, because the claim of the petitioner was duly covered under the Pension Scheme Annexure P-6 dated 3.2.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that once nobody else, including the above said widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, was coming forward to claim family pension, petitioner was entitled for 100% family pension. He submits that petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that if widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar comes forward to claim half family pension, petitioner would have no objection. However, till any other dependent of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, including his above said widow namely Smt. Babli Devi comes forward and put any kind of claim for family pension, petitioner deserves to be granted 100% family pension on account of the death of her above said son late Sh. Suresh Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the averments taken in preliminary objections in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, to contend that after issuance of the succession certificate (Annexure P-2), financial benefits on account of retiral dues of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, including GPF, CGEGIS, DCRG were equally distributed amongst the family members, except Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, because she had already relinquished her claim in this regard before the learned civil court, at the time of issuance of succession certificate vide Annexure P-2.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the pension scheme dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure P-6), dependent parents/brothers/sisters etc. were entitled for the family pension to the extent of one half of the rate applicable to widows, fatherless/motherless children. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in view of the pension scheme Annexure P-6, petitioner is not entitled for 100% family pension. He prays for passing appropriate orders.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, for the following more than one reasons.

In view of the above said undisputed factual position on record, coupled with the fact that pension scheme dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure P-6) is a beneficial scheme for the dependents of deceased employees, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner, being dependent mother of the deceased employee namely late Sh. Suresh Kumar, is entitled for full family pension and not one half, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the Pension Scheme Annexure P-6. It is so said because except the petitioner none-else including the abovesaid widow of deceased employee is coming forward to claim anything in this regard. In fact, when the petitioner filed a petition for succession certificate before the learned court of competent jurisdiction, impleading the above said Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar as respondent No. 2, Smt. Babli Devi appeared before the learned civil court and filed reply completely relinquishing her claim in this regard, stating that she has got no objection in case the succession certificate is issued only in favour of the applicant i.e. present petitioner.

Accordingly, the learned court of competent jurisdiction passed the order dated 1.3.2004, issuing the succession certificate in favour of the petitioner only. There is another equally strong circumstance in support of the above said view taken by this court and that is that after issuance of succession certificate (Annexure P-2), all the financial benefits on account of retiral dues of the deceased employee, including the amount of GPF, CGEGIS and DCRG were equally distributed amongst the family members of the deceased employee, except his widow Smt. Babli Devi. Nothing was paid to Smt. Babli Devi out of the above said retiral benefits, because she had already relinquished her claim in this regard before the learned civil court, at the time of passing of order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-2), for issuing succession certificate.

In view of the above said undisputed facts on record, it has been duly established that no other dependent of the deceased employee is either interested or coming forward to put any claim for family pension on account of the death of late Sh. Suresh Kumar. It is only the petitioner, being dependent mother of the deceased employee, who is fighting for her genuine cause. Under these peculiar circumstances, this does not appeal to reason, as to why the petitioner should not be held entitled for full family pension, particularly when she is ready to furnish an undertaking before the respondent authorities that if Smt. Babli Devi, widow of deceased employee namely late Sh. Suresh Kumar, comes forward for claiming her share in the family pension, petitioner would have no objection.

If at all, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar comes forward to claim any share in the family pension, she would at the most be entitled for her share in the family pension only from that date, when she applies for it. However, since she had already relinquished her claim in this regard before the learned civil court at the time of issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner, there does not seem to be any possibility that she would ever put her claim for any share in the family pension. Since the family pension scheme Annexure P-6 is a beneficial scheme for the dependents of deceased employees, there is no reason as to why dependent mother of the deceased employee must not get full family pension, particularly when there is no other claimant coupled with the fact that she is ready to furnish an undertaking indicated above.

This court is conscious of the fact that the peculiar fact situation, as obtaining in the present case, is not envisaged in the Pension Scheme of 2000 (Annexure P-6). The reason is obvious that the scheme making authority could not visualise this kind of given situation. Since the scheme is a beneficial scheme, it must get liberal interpretation from the courts as well. Since this scheme has been formulated under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and also on the basis of recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission, it is a scheme, statutory in nature.

The relevant extract of this statutory scheme is as under:--

"Subject: Special benefits in cases of death and disability in service - payment of disability pension/family pension recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

The undersigned is directed to say that the Fifth Central Pay Commission, inter alia, recommended that for determining the compensation payable for death or disability under different circumstances, the cases could be broadly categorized in five different categories as under:''''

XXXX

The Fifth Central Pay Commission recommended various relief packages for the above categories, in modification of the existing provisions on the subject.

The recommendations of the Commission have been under consideration of the Government for some time. Orders have already been issued regarding ex-gratia payment in case of death in service vide this Dept.''s OM No. 45/55/97-P & PW (C) 11.9.98. In respect of disability pension/family pension, the President is now pleased to decide as under:--

(i) Cases covered under the Category (A) would continue to be covered under normal existing provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules.

(ii) In cases covered under category (B), (C), (D) & (E) the scales of the family pension/disability pension would be as under:"

XXXX "

A careful perusal of the scheme will show that the Commission put the cases in five broad categories whereas the category of parents covering the fact situation like the present one could not be envisaged under the scheme. Under the circumstances noticed above, this court is of the view that dependent parent like the petitioner cannot be denied full pension and she is hereby declared entitled for full pension, being mother of deceased employee, so as to achieve the object of the scheme.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed herein above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered opinion that since the impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-5 have been found to be patently illegal, being violative of the pension scheme dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure P-6), the same are hereby set aside. Petitioner is declared entitled for receiving the full family pension on account of the death of her late son Sh. Suresh Kumar, she being the only claimant in this regard.

Consequently, respondent authorities are directed to calculate and release the full family pension in favour of the petitioner, alongwith arrears of pension with effect from 22.2.2002, the date from which the family pension of Smt. Babli Devi widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar was stopped. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from today. Petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. on her arrears of family pension from the date when the amount became due, till the date of actual payment. If the needful is not done within the stipulated period, petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. It goes without saying that once the petitioner starts getting family pension, the respondent authorities shall ensure that the petitioner gets her family pension every month, on regular basis. With the above said observations made and directions issued, instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.