Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Harichand Ganpathi Pattekar vs South Central Railway on 26 September, 2022
OA 637/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA No. 637/2022
HYDERABAD, this the 26th day of September, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judl. Member.
Harichand Ganpathi Pattekar S/o. Late Ganpathi,
Aged 86 years, Group-C,
Occ: Passenger Driver(Retired),
In the O/o. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway, Nanded Division, Nanded.
R/o. Panchasheel Nagar, Purna Tq,
Parbhani Dist., Maharashtra.
... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr. K Siva Reddy)
Vs.
Union of India rep. by
1. The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway,
Hyderabad Division,
Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.
3. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager,
South Central Railway,
Hyderabad Division,
Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad.
... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr. G Raghunath, Sr.PC for CG).
Page 1 of 3
OA 637/2022
---
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judl. Member) This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in non-disposing of the representation dt. 28.04.2022 wherein the applicant filed an appeal against the order passed by the Respondent No.3 in proceedings No.SCR/P-
HYB/695/Sett./HG/2018 dt. 17.12.2018 rejecting the request of the applicant to change the name of the wife as nominee in pension papers by applying the Pension Rules, which has not come into force at the time of marriage and the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii) Direct the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the applicant for changing the name of the nominee in PP as Shasikala Bai, Wife of the applicant and to pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. I) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who worked as Passenger Driver in the respondents' organization, took voluntary retirement on 14.03.1994 due to ill-health after rendering 33 years of service. The applicant belongs to Indian Buddhist Caste and, as per the existing customs, he married Sunderbai in the year 1959 and, due to her ill-health and with her consent, the applicant again married Mrs. Shashikala Bai in the year 1964. The applicant's first wife, Mrs. Sunderbai, died on 08.07.2013 and, the applicant is being taken care by his second wife, Mrs. Shashikala Bai.
II) It is submitted that the applicant, inadvertently, has not given the name of Mrs. Shashikala Bai as nominee to receive family pension. After knowing the same, he made a representation dt. 31.08.2018 to the respondents to change the name of the nominee. Page 2 of 3 OA 637/2022 The respondents have rejected the applicant's request vide Order dt. 17.12.2018 citing Rule 21 of Railway Services(Conduct) Rules, 1966. The applicant has sent Legal Notice dt. 23.12.2021/04.01.2022 to the respondents to take necessary action which was ignored. Thereafter, he made another representation dt. 28.04.2022 to the respondents requesting to change the nominee in PPO which is stated to have been pending with the respondents.
III) The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the second wife of the applicant has legal right to be the nominee of the applicant for receiving pension. Aggrieved over the inaction of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
3. Mr. G Raghunath, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the representation of the applicant dt. 28.04.2022 is pending consideration of the respondents.
4. I) After hearing counsel for the parties, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the applicant's representation dt. 28.04.2022 by passing speaking order within a period of six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the applicant.
II) With the above direction, the OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member(J) /Ram/ Page 3 of 3