The Union of India vs Smt. Ram Kali Devi

Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General for the

Union of India who is aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2017 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in

O.A.664 of 2015. Since the O.A. is allowed with a direction to pay the

remaining retiral dues and family pension from the due date to the

applicant, who is private respondent in the present writ application,

the order of Tribunal is being challenged.

The core submission of the counsel for the Union of

India is that since the service of the husband of the private respondent

was not regularized, therefore the widow is not entitled to get any

kind of benefit much less the family pension.

The Tribunal had given reasons for allowing the O.A.

because in similar and identical situation adjudication had been made

in favour of the previous applicants one of them being O.A. 113 of

2006 decided on 21.09.2006 which was affirmed by even Patna High

Court vide order dated 07.11.2007 in CWJC No.4475 of 2007 and the

order of the Patna High Court has been affirmed by the Hon''ble Apex

Court on 04.12.2009.

Even recently a similar kind of litigation had travelled

from O.A. 900 of 2012 in CWJC No.10978 of 2017 and this Division

Bench vide order dated 04.09.2017 had upheld the direction issued by

the Tribunal which had extended the benefit of the pension where the

issue was also with regard to old and new pension scheme. The

factual position is that the husband of the petitioner was granted

temporary status at par with Group-D employees as far back as on

29/30.11.1992 and he died in harness on 17.04.2015 i.e. after

completion of more than 25 years of service. The fact is that 50% of

the period even in temporary status begets the benefit of pension.

The stand of the Union of India is that the employee

never got regularized. The Court is not impressed by such a

submission for the reason that it was failure on the part of the

Postal Department not to regularize the service of the husband of the

private respondent in 23 years of service after having been granted

temporary status at par with Group-D employees. The failure is on the

part of the Postal Department authorities, whose conduct cannot be

appreciated or ignored.

In the consistency of decision making, the Court

refuses to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Writ is dismissed.