Rukaiya Khatoon 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 the following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being allowed the benefit of family pension to her being widowed daughter of Late Shri Warasat Hussain, who was a Railway servant and was a railway pensioner at the time of his death (Annexure A-1 to Compilation No. ‘I’ of this petition).

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider and grant the benefit of family pension to the petitioner with arrears thereof at the appropriate rate and to continue to pay the same in future also, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(iii) To issue an other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

(iv) To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner”.

The brief facts of the case are that father of the applicant was retired from railways w.e.f. 31.01.1990 and he was drawing pension. Father of applicant died on 10.02.1998. Applicant’s mother had already died on 31.12.1995. Applicant had married with Shri Shahid Ahmad on 18.04.1971. After the wedlock of Shri Shahid Ahmad, three sons and three daughter have born. Applicant’s husband died on 16.12.2005. After the death of her husband, she and her children shifted to her parent’s house, thus, she is fully dependent upon the mercy of her Maiyaka. Thereafter applicant submitted an application on 01.05.2018 for inclusion of her name in Form No. 06, which was rejected by the respondents by the impugned order dated 16.05.2019. The aforesaid impugned order is challenged through this OA.

I have heard Shri Rakesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that father of the applicant died in the year 1998 after retirement. Applicant’s mother had already died Applicant had married with Shri Shahid Ahmad. Husband of applicant also died on 16.12.2005. Thereafter, applicant came at the residence of her father and became independent on the income of the father’s family. It was next argued that applicant applied for family pension to the respondents by application dated 1.5.2018, which was rejected by order dated 16.05.2019 on the ground that applicant was not dependent at time of death of her father, thus, family pension could not be allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Annexure No. 7 RBE No. 99/2013 and specifically argued that there is no embargo in allowing the family pension in favour of the applicant. The widow daughter is fully entitled for family pension upon the death of her father. Learned counsel also refers RBE No. 44 of 2005 and next argued that upper age limit has also been relaxed and only condition was imposed that arrear before 25.7.2004 shall not be paid. Referring to the aforesaid fact, it was further argued that impugned order passed in the matter is illegal, thus, prayer was made to allow the OA.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Applicant was residing with her husband since his death i.e. 16.12.2005 and she was not dependent on the income of her father who died on 10.02.1998 itself. Referring to the RBE No. 99/2013 and related OM, it was further argued that only those children who are dependent and meet other condition of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pension. Thus referring to the aforesaid fact, it was further argued that since applicant was not dependent on the income of her father at the time of his death, she is not entitled for family pension. Respondents have rightly turned down the prayer of the applicant.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record.

From the pleadings and the arguments raised before me, the disputes between the parties are regarding whether the widowed daughter is entitled to be granted family pension and whether at the time of death of the father of applicant, she was in penury condition and was dependent upon the deceased employee’s income.

In the present case, the father of the applicant expired on 10.02.1998 after retirement and the applicant has filed application on 01.05.2015 for grant of family pension and the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that according to the Railway Board letter No. RBE No. 99/2013 dated 26.09.2013, ex-employee or their wife while alive and those children who were dependent upon them at that time then only family pension can be approved. If such is the position, family pension is not payable in favour of the applicant. From the perusal of RBE letter No. 99/2013, it is regarding grant of family pension to the eligible widowed/divorced daughter. The relevant extract of aforesaid letter reproduced below:-

“Therefore, only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the government servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pension”.

It is admitted fact that applicant’s father died on 10.02.1998 and she was married with Shri Shahid Ahmed on 18.04.1971. Her husband had also died on 16.12.2005 i.e. at the time father of the applicant he was alive, she was dependent upon her husband. It is also admitted by the applicant that after the death of applicant’s husband, she had shifted to the father’s house, thus, it is proved that applicant was not dependent upon her father when he was alive. Therefore, the prayer made in the application cannot be allowed and the present Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

10-. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. All associated M.A. also stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.