Kando Devi vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Sri Gajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri Raman Kumar Sah, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

On a query made by this Court to the counsel for the Petitioner Sri Gajendra Tripathi as well as counsel for the Union of India Sri Raman Kumar Sah as to whether the matter is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the counsel for the Petitioner has stated that the matter is not cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the only remedy to the Petitioner is before this Court. Learned Counsel for the Union of India Sri Raman Kumar Sah accepts this position that the remedy to the Petitioner lies before this Court alone. On these preliminary submissions this Court proceeds further.

The Petitioner is a widow of one Sri Surat Singh Chauhan who was an employee (peon) in "Sashastra Seema Bal" (from hereinafter referred to as SSB) - a paramilitary organisation under the Home Ministry. The Petitioner''s husband late Sri Surat Singh Chauhan took voluntary retirement from SSB with effect from 3.9.2001 and was given pension by the department. He died on 9.2.2009. Subsequent to his death, his widow i.e. the Petitioner applied for a family pension before the competent authority. This, however, was in vain. Recommendations though were made by the then Area Organiser, SSB, Lohaghat to the Government of India vide order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) stating that the Petitioner is a widow of the deceased employee and is liable to get family pension and the matter regarding her pension should be settled as early as possible. Inspite of the recommendation made by the Area Organiser, SSB, Lohaghat the pension authority refused to grant family pension to the Petitioner. Constrained the Petitioner filed the writ petition with the following prayers:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to regularize the family pension of the Petitioner of which she is entitled after the death of her pensioner husband as per the letter of Respondent No. 1 dated 23.07.2010 (annexure No. 10 to the petition).

(ii) To pass such orders or directions which are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The present Area Organiser, SSB, Lohaghat filed a counter affidavit stating that the reason for not granting the family pension to the Petitioner is that the husband of the Petitioner only a few days prior to his retirement had given an affidavit stating that the name of his wife i.e. the Petitioner be deleted from his service record as nominee and the names of his two sons, namely, Arjun Singh and Shemsher Singh be substituted in her place. The reasons given were that his wife is not residing with her for the last three years and in fact she is living with his brother Sri Mor Singh. Based on this reason alone the family pension was denied to the Petitioner.

Since it is not in dispute that the Petitioner was legally wedded wife of the deceased Surat Singh Chauhan and prior to his death the marriage between the Petitioner and her husband was surviving, as it had not been dissolved, the Petitioner continued to be the legally wedded wife of Sri Surat Singh Chauhan and, therefore, in law she is liable to get the benefits liable to be given to the widow of the deceased employee.

Sri Raman Kumar Sah, learned Counsel for the Union of India has fairly submitted that two sons of the Petitioner who were substituted as nominees can also not be given family pension. Be that as it may, the status of nominee is only this much that under law he is liable to receive the benefits but these benefits will ultimately pass on to the legal heir of the deceased. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it was the Petitioner who being the legally wedded wife of Surat Singh Chauhan was liable to get the family pension for which she is entitled under the law. The denial of family pension to the Petitioner is absolutely illegal and is based on a total misconception of law. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, Block II, Trikoot Complex, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi is directed to fix the family pension of the Petitioner and pay her the same regularly. The arrears of pension shall also be paid to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

Writ petition stands allowed.

No order as to costs.