Baijanti Kuar vs Union of India and Others

Hon''ble Shri N. Sahu, Member (Administrative)

The applicant is a widow of Late Bhagwat Dubey who worked as a Khalasi in Shop No. 1 Loco, Kuncharapara under the Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway, Kuncharapara, West Bengal (Respondent No, 2) and died on 16.10.1944 in harness. Several representations for final settlement of her husband''s retirement benefits having failed, the applicant served a legal notice on the Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway or 26.10.83. There was also no response to this. On 13th June, 88, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, issued a notification vide Circular No. 4/1/87-P&PWD dated 13.06.1988 for Ex-gratia payment of Rs, 150/- p.m. as well as clearness relief''s to families of the deceased who retired or died while in service before 01.01.86 and accordingly, the applicant sent an application to Respondent No. 2 in the prescribed form. This application was returned by the Department on 14.08.92 for re-submission after making good the deficiencies pointed out by the Railways. Accordingly, the application was re-submitted and ex-gratia payment of Rs. 150/-p.m. was sanctioned by the Chief Works Manager in Order No. PB/FS/11/EGP, dated 18.12.92. A copy of the said order was endorsed to the applicant also. All on a sudden after a lot of delay, the applicant was served with a letter dated 08.04.93, issued by Respondent No. 2, asking the applicant to prove that her husband worked under the establishment of the Railway Administration, as no such proof was available with the Railways in this behalf. This letter is Annexure-A-1 to the petition and relief sought in this petition is that this letter should be quashed and the applicant should be paid all the dues as per Govt. of India Circular dated, 13th June, 88. Very clear instructions are provided in the Govt. of India''s instructions dated. 13.06.88. Among other details it is stated - It would be the responsibility of the head of the office or department to determine the beneficiary who would be entitled to receive the ex-gratia payment, as mentioned in para-1 above. After the Head of Office has satisfied himself about the bonafide of the claim, he shall sanction ex-gratia payment and forward the same to the Accounts Officer for issue of payment order.

(Emphasis supplied)

The learned Advocate for the respondents, Shri Gautam Bose questioned this application on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground of jurisdiction. The applicant''s husband was stated to have been working under the Chief Works Manager at Kuncharapara in the State of West Bengal and the respondents also reside there. Thus, the petition shall have been filed before the appropriate Bench in West Bengal. Secondly the learned Advocate, Shri Bose argued that the sanction order was a conditional one. The sanction was issued basically on the basis of a certificate by a Gazetted Officer to the effect that the applicant''s husband was an employee of Kuncharapara Railway Workshop. Thereafter, the papers were sent to Audit for verification of the claim. The papers were returned unedited, as it could not be proved that the husband of the applicant was the employee of the Kuncharapara Railway Workshop. As no further evidence was forthcoming from the applicant, the sanction order could not be given effect. It was urged that the sanction was a prima-facie order and a separate letter was also enclosed to the Sanction Order requiring the Audit Department to verify the records before advising payment to the disbursing authority. Accordingly, Shri Bose urged that there was nothing wrong in the stand taken by the Railways.

I have carefully considered the arguments of Shri Bose but I am unable to uphold the stand of the Railways Administration. Before I go into the merits, let me dispose of the technical plea.

2.1. The case is clearly covered within the limitation period as the impugned order, Annexure A-1, was passed on 08.04.93 and the application was filed on 07.09.93. With regard to jurisdiction, under Rule 6 (2), it is very clear that persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination may file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is residing at the time of filing of the application. Smt. Baijanti Kuar, widow and the person affected by the grievance, resides in the jurisdiction of this Bench and, therefore, there is no question of lack of jurisdiction. The words "Termination, Dismissal or Retirement" would include "Death" also.

2.2. With regard to merits also the applicant is clearly entitled to succeed. The instructions of the Govt. of India contained in the Circular letter dated 13.06.88 are intended to confer certain benefits on persons who died long-back and whose claims could not be processed for want of records/ documents. There instructions were specifically issued only to remove such handicaps and, therefore, our interpretation should be such that the remedy is advanced and the relief''s/benefits payable are accelerated. Sub-Clause (b) of Clause-4 of the famous circular quoted above laid down a self-contained procedure for dealing with cases like that of this unfortunate widow before this Tribunal. These instructions were issued on the basis of the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission. Clauses (b) & (c) are extracted hereunder :

(b) It will be the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the head of office that she/he is the widow/widower or eligible child of the Government servant concerned to receive the ex-gratia payment under these orders and establish identity by production of document such as CPF Account Slips or the letter regarding settlement of Contributory Provident Fund Account or retirement orders or such other relevant records which may be in her, his possession. In cases where no such records are available the applicants will be required to produce one of the following documents for establishing their bonafide : -

i. Succession certificate from a Court, or

ii. Affidavit sworn before a Magistrate, or

iii. Affidavit of the claimant on a plain paper supported by any two documents which may be acceptable to the head of department/sanctioning authority.

In addition the widow/widower may also be required to produce an affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper of the appropriate value applicable in the State in which she/he is residing to the effect that she/he was married to the deceased employee prior to his retirement. This may not be insisted upon if the sanctioning authority is otherwise satisfied on the basis of other evidence about the eligibility of the claimant.

(c) The head of office shall verify the claim with reference to his records. For this purpose, he may, where necessary, also consult the Accounts Officer maintaining the CPF ledger of the deceased employee to ensure that the deceased employee was in fact governed by the CPF Scheme. He will also ensure that duplicate claims for grant of ex-gratia payment under these orders are not sanctioned. For this purpose, where possible, an endorsement to the effect that the ex-gratia payment has been sanctioned shall be recorded in the CPF ledger of the deceased employee. It would be responsibility of the head of the office or department to determine the beneficiary who would be entitled to receive the ex-gratia payment as mentioned in para-1 above. After the head of office has satisfied himself about the bonafides of the claim he shall sanction ex-gratia payment and forward the same to the Accounts Officer for issue of payment order. The Accounts Officer means the Accounts Officer who issued pension payment orders in respect of the employees in the respective offices on pensionable establishment.

2.3. The applicant had taken the benefit of the alternative scheme, and more specifically by complying with method (iii) of Sub-Clause (b). Apparently all the conditions have been satisfied.

Shri Gautam Bose candidly submitted the original application papers of the claimant, Smt. Baijanti Kuar. The form of application for the grant of ex-gratia payment to family of employee governed by the CPF scheme who died while in service prior to 01.01.1986, has been filled-up properly and it was mentioned that Late Bhagwat Dubey was a Khalasi under DCME (KPA) Loco. There are no other survivors except his widow. Two Gazetted Officers have certified that Smt. Baijanti Kuar was the widow of Shri Bhagwat Dubey and resident of village Gurmia (Tiwary Tola); Distt. Vaishali. They certified that they were satisfied that she was the bonafide claimant of ex-gratia applied for. There was a Surety Bond by two persons which was also witnessed and attested. There was an affidavit by Smt. Kuar narrating the facts mentioned in the first paragraph of this order. The chief of Gurmia Gram Panchayat also attested the identity and the death and this certificate in its turn was attested by another Gazetted Officer. There is a certificate by a Gazetted Officer which states that Smt. Baijanti Kuar was the wife of a SRP contributor beneficiary employee in the Shop No. 1 Loco, KPA Railway as a Khalasi. There was also a certificate of non-marriage which was affidavit before a Gazetted Officer alongwith other formal documents. These were examined and the sanction order was passed. The presumption is that respondent No. 2 examined the conditions outlined in the scheme, extracted above and was satisfied.

I have carefully examined the sanction order at Annexure A-5. This was a complete, unequivocal and final sanction order. This was in accordance with the then existing instructions. It is assumed that the Railways had satisfied themselves about the identity of the claimant''s husband before issuing the sanction order. The scheme designed by the Railways put the entire onus on the administration to satisfy itself about the identity. How else was the ad-ministration expected to come to the succour of poor, illiterate, helpless retired employees or their widows whose case-sheets are half-a-century old as in this case? Let us assume without admitting that the Railways had a doubt about the identity of the applicant''s husband. One is astonished that the Railways with such a gigantic establishment and colossal resources at its command, could not identify that the widow applicant''s husband was its employee and virtually now intends to make a volute lace after handing her down with a sanction order. I, therefore, hold that the letter dated 08.04.93, directing the applicant to prove by documentary evidence that her husband was a Railway employee at Kuncharapara Workshop, is uncalled for. I further direct that the Respondent No. 2 and No. 3 shall within a period of two months from the receipt of this order make complete and final payments of the ex-gratia dues, current and arrears, at the rates prescribed in the Circular of Ministry of Personnel, without any conditions. It is however, open to the Railways to make enquiries and if they doubt the bonafides of the claim they have many remedies left with them to recover the amount. If they find the applicant is an imposter, they can even criminally proceed against her for perjury and for filing fabricated documents.

In the result, the application is allowed. The parties will bear their own costs.