Sita Devi vs Pay & Accounts Office And Ors

The applicant in the OA has sought family pension being the widowed daughter of late Shri Ram Pravesh Mahto, who was employed as Mason with All India Radio, New Delhi. The applicant submits that her father superannuated on 31.07.2013 but expired one month thereafter on 08.08.2013. The deceased left behind three sons and one daughter (the applicant) since the mother of the applicant had already expired on 23.07.2013.

The applicant states that other legal representatives of late Shri Ram Pravesh Mahto are major and have already crossed the upper age limit for receiving family pension. Hence she is entitled to get the family pension as provided in OM of Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions dated 11.09.2013.

The respondents in their counter affidavit submit that the name of the applicant did not figure anywhere in the nomination papers of late Shri Ram Pravesh Mahto. It is contended that name of the applicant does not figure either in the CGHS Card or in the details of family submitted by the late employee as late as April and May, 2008 showing that the applicant was not residing with him as a dependent family member. Hence the statement of the applicant claiming to be dependent widow daughter of the employee cannot be accepted as also her claim for family pension.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K.Gupta argued that the applicant is entitled for family pension of her father late Shri Ram Pravesh Mahto being the widowed daughter. The learned counsel informed the bench that as per the Civil Court order dated 18.10.2016 it has been confirmed that the applicant is the daughter of late Shri Ram Pravesh Mahto. In this regard, he drew my attention to the statement of the three brothers of the applicant including herself, confirming this fact.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Vikrant Yadav stated that in the order relied upon by the applicant her claim for family pension has been rejected -further strengthening the stand of the respondents.

I have gone through the facts of the case carefully. It is not disputed that the name of the applicant has not been reflected in any of the service particulars/details of family - given by late Shri Ram Pravesh Mahto. Even in the Petition for grant of succession certificate filed by her in the Court of Civil Judge, New Delhi, the Hon'ble Judge has held that :-

"12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that family pension is neither a debt or security under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, since family pension is available on account of status of a person claiming right to it by being entitled as a legal heir and not because of estate of deceased.

The present succession petition has asked for a succession certificate in respect of family pension of the deceased late Shri Ram Pravesh Mehto. Since the family pension can neither be termed as a debt or security for the purpose of succession certificate, hence, succession certificate cannot be issued to the petitioner nor can it be insisted upon by any authority."

In view of the aforesaid clear judicial finding against the applicant, the issue merits no further discussion. OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.