Km. Varsha Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 04.04.2019 (Annexure No. 5 to the original application) whereby the claim of the applicant for the grant of family pension has been rejected.

(ii) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, especially the respondnet Nos. 3 & 4, to consider the claim of the applicant and grant her family pension.

(iii) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the respondent No. 4 to pay the entire arrears of family pension to the applicant with effect from the date the same became due, along with interest @ 15% per annum and continue to pay the same till the period of her entitlement.

(iv)Pass any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant”.

The brief facts of the applicant’s case are that her father, a retired government employee, passed away in 2002. Following his death, the applicant’s mother received family pension until her own demise in 2018. Thereafter, the applicant, being unmarried, submitted an application for grant of family pension along with all required documents. However, her claim was rejected solely on the ground that her name was not entered in her father’s service records. The applicant contends that the respondents cannot deny her legitimate entitlement to family pension on such a technical ground and therefore seeks grant of family pension from the date of her mother’s death until her marriage.

I have heard Shri S. Mukherji, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the deceased employee, father of the applicant, was serving in the respondents’ department. He took premature retirement on 18.05.1994 and died on 18.12.2002. Thereafter, the applicant’s mother received the family pension. The deceased employee had six children, including the present applicant. The applicant’s mother expired on 29.05.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that since the applicant is unmarried, she applied for grant of family pension for the period until her marriage. She also submitted all required documents for the same. However, her claim was rejected solely on the ground that her name was not recorded in the service records of the deceased employee. Referring to these facts, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claim cannot be rejected merely because the applicant’s name is not mentioned in the service records. It was argued that she cannot be denied family pension on this technical ground. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for allowing the OA, setting aside the impugned order, and directing the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant from the date of her mother’s death until the applicant gets married

Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, submitted that the respondents are willing to consider the applicant’s claim for family pension, subject to verification of the genuineness of the applicant. He further referred to paragraph 30 of the counter-affidavit and stated that certain documents are required to be furnished by the applicant, and only upon submission of these documents, competent authority can examine and decide her claim.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish all requisite details sought by the respondents. Thus, she prayed that the Original Application may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to permit the applicant to submit the necessary documents as required by them.

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.

From the pleadings, it is evident that the father of the applicant, a retired employee of the respondents’ department, expired in 2002, and thereafter the applicant’s mother was granted and paid family pension until her death in 2018. The applicant, being unmarried, thereafter applied for family pension. The same was rejected vide impugned communication dated 04.04.2019 only on the ground that her name was not available in the service records.

The learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that the respondents are willing to consider the case of the applicant, subject to verification of her genuineness and submission of requisite documents as mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 30 of the counter-affidavit.

The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish all documents required by the respondents and seeks only an opportunity to submit the same so that her claim may be duly considered.

In view of the above, since both parties are agreeable that the matter be reconsidered upon submission of the required documents, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to dispose of the O.A. with suitable directions, instead of entering into merits at this stage.

Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The respondents shall, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, issue a formal communication to the applicant clearly specifying the complete list of documents/information required from her for consideration of her claim for family pension.

(ii) Upon receipt of such communication, the applicant shall furnish all the required documents within 15 days thereafter.

(iii) After receipt of the applicant’s documents, the respondents shall verify the same and decide the applicant’s claim for family pension strictly in accordance with rules, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 3 months.

It is clarified that the Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.