Union of India And Ors vs Urmila Devi

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sudhir Kumar.

By order dated 22.08.2014, the matter was directed to be listed under the heading for final hearing by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. Later by

order dated 12.04.2017, the prayer for stay of the operation of the impugned order was also rejected by another Co-ordinate Bench.

Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi by the impugned order dated 18.05.2012 passed in Original

Application No.25/2010 (R) has quashed the order dated 10.09.2008 passed by the respondent pursuant to the direction issued in OA. No.26 of 2008,

rejecting the claim of the applicant for payment of pensionary benefits and directed the Respondents/petitioner Railways to grant her family pension

counting the period of 14 years of service of the employee from 11.09.1970 to 03.06.1984.

The employee after being injured during duty had undergone indoor treatment and after being discharged on 04.06.1984 remained absent till

December, 1997. When he made a representation for joining after being released from RINPAS, Kanke, Ranchi where he was undergoing treatment

for mental illness, an endorsement was made on his representation by Sr. Section Engineer (C&W) on 30.12.1997 (Annexure - 1) that he was

removed from service w.e.f. 15.09.1988 vide No. ERS /1/Fitter/88 dated 12.09.1988 due to absence from duty from 04.06.1984 to 14.09.1988. No

order of removal was served upon the employee as per the case of the applicant. During proceedings of the instant OA despite adjournments granted

twice, the respondent Railway could not produce the order of removal. In those circumstances, learned Tribunal arrived at a finding that the

respondent Railways were not sure whether the employees was discharged or removed and neither was any order of removal produced or served

upon the employee or the applicant widow. Therefore, counting the period of service of the employee from 11.09.1970 to 03.06.1984 i.e., 14 years,

applicant widow would be entitled to family pension. As per the rule 75 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, a widow is entitled to family

pension after 1 (one) year of regular service of the employee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Railways does not dispute the finding of the learned Tribunal to the extent that no order of removal could be

produced before the learned tribunal during the proceedings of the case nor were served upon the employee during his lifetime or upon his widow-the

applicant. However, he strongly relies upon the endorsement dated 30.12.1997 made upon the representation of the employee dated 23.12.1997.

According to him, the endorsement is based on records and there was no reason for the Tribunal to doubt it. Once the employee had been removed

from service for unauthorised absence from duty, the claim of pensionary benefits stood forfeited. As such, learned Tribunal committed error in

holding that the applicant widow is entitled to receive family pension counting the period of 14 years of regular service of the employee from 1970 to

1984.

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the relevant pleadings on record. Upon perusal of the records and

due consideration, we find that it is not in dispute that neither the order of removal was served on the employee or the applicant widow nor it was

produced before the learned CAT during the proceedings for the instant OA. No contemporaneous documents such as framing of charge sheet,

issuance of show cause notice or proceedings of the enquiry leading to his removal produced to substantiate the plea taken before the learned CAT in

support of the order of rejection of the representation of the applicant dated 10.09.2008 regarding claim of retiral benefits. It is not in dispute that the

employee had served Railway in regular service for the period 11.09.1970 till 03.06.1984 i.e., 14 years which not only entitled the employee to get

pension, but also entitled the widow of such an employee to receive family pension as per Rule 75 of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, which

is quoted hereunder:

75.Family Pension Scheme for railway servants, 1964: - (1) The provisions of this rule shall apply: -

(a) to a railway servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or after the 1st January, 1964; and

(b) to a railway servant who was in service on the 31st December, 1963 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for

railway employees, 1964, contained in the Railway Board's letter No. F (P) 63 PN1/40 dated the 2nd January 1964 as in force immediately before the

commencement of these rules.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (18) and without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (4),where a railway servant dies,--

(a) after completion of one year of continuous service; or

(b) before completion of one year of continuous service, provided the deceased railway servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the

service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for railway service; or

(c) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in these rules, the

family of the deceased shall be entitled to family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for

Railway Servants, 1964, the amount of which shall be determined at a uniform rate of thirty per cent. of basic pay subject to a minimum of three

thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and a maximum of twenty- seven thousand rupees per mensem.

Explanation- The expression ""one year of continuous service"" wherever it occurs in this rule, shall be construed to include less than one year of

continuous service, as provided in clause (b)."";

Having regard to the discussion made herein above and for the reasons recorded we therefore, do not find any error in the impugned order calling

for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.