Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt. Anwari Begam Aged About 43 Years W/O ... vs The Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 7 September, 2012
(RESERVED) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD (THIS THE 7th DAY OF September 2012) PRESENT: HONBLE MR. D. C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1502 OF 2011 (U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunals Act.1985) Smt. Anwari Begam aged about 43 years W/o Late Shaukat Ali Resident of 220/70 Tulsipur, P.O. Kareli, Thana Kareli, District Allahabad. . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate: Shri S. Lal. Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary (Shipping) Govt. of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, South Block New Delhi-110011. 2. The Director General of Shipping, Mumbai (Maharastra). 3. Assistant Godi Prabandhak, Shram Prashasan Mumbai Port Trust (O.B.L.), Panchawi Manjil, Indira Godi, Mumbai- 400 001. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Shri J. Nayak. O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY:- HONBLE MR. D.C. LAKHA, MEMBER-A) This OA has been preferred to seek the following reliefs:-
A. To issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to settle the family pension of applicant and other dues payable to her and paid to the applicant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due amount to the date of actual payment.
2. The facts of the case in brief as stated in the OA are that the husband of the applicant late Shaukat Ali retired on 2.3.2001 and died on 22.4.2003 at Mumbai (Annexure-A-1). The applicant who claims to be the legally wedded wife, married to deceased on 27.4.1987 made representation to respondent No.3 for payment of family pension vide his application dated 13.6.2003. In response to direction of respondent No.3 vide letter dated 26.9.2005, letter dated 6.5.2004 and 12.10.2006 the applicant personally submitted pension paper and other documents including death certificate in the office of respondent No.3 in the month of May 2009. Applicant vide his application dated 23.5.2011 and 29.6.2011 requested the respondent No.3 to settle and pay retiral dues to the applicant but inspite of all the efforts, she has not been paid these l dues, hence this OA.
3. The OA filed by the applicant has been contested by the respondents by means of filing detailed counter affidavit. It has further been stated that the services of the deceased was shown less than 10 years i.e 09 years 06 months and 22 days because of extraordinary leave, therefore revised pension and gratuity was prepared and forwarded to pension branch on 16.10.2002 and 28.1.2003 to review his case. Shri Shaukat Ali was informed to contact the office and fill up F form in compliance of letter dated 22.5.2003 of Senior Account Officer (Pension) and the same was forwarded to Senior Account Officer (Pension) vide letter dated 6.5.2009. The applicant vide letter dated 13.6.2003 submitted all the documents required by the respondents. But regarding death certificate Ms Rubina daughter of ex employee informed that it was not with them. Vide letter dated 27.6.2006 the applicant was informed that her husband has already collected P.F. and Gratuity dues and also that Smt. Zubedas name as his wife has been recorded on the registration form hence she was asked to clarify the same. Applicant, on 8.6.2010 sent a letter informing the respondents that she does not know Smt. Zubeda. As the applicant appears to be the second wife of the deceased, a letter was issued to Nyay Panchayat Village Devili Khalsa Amila Mohammadabad Gohana district Azamgath seeking clarification on marital status of Late Shaukat Ali, to which no reply was received. The applicant appeared to be the second wife of Late Shaukat Ali and as per MbPT Pension Regulations, family pension is payable to the eldest surviving widow. Since the applicant has not produced any evidence that she is the eldest surviving widow of Late Shri Shaukat Ali, the case of the applicant for family pension could not be processed.
4. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed by the applicant denying the allegations made in the Counter and reiterating the averments made in the O.A. Written arguments have also been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. It has further been stated that it appears that while getting his name Registered for his appointment the deceased had recorded the name of one Smt Zubada. Applicant married to Late Shaukat Ali on 27.4.1987. Applicant is not known to any Smt. Zubeda. Husband of applicant had already made Nominations for receipt of Provident Fund and DCRG in favour of the applicant being his wife. Name of applicant and her other family members are recorded on Form F (Pension) and on Application Form for payment of arrears also the name of applicant is recorded. These documents have been received from the Respondents under RTI Act 2005. Copies of Nomination for Provident Fund, Nomination for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Form F (Pension) submitted by husband of applicant and Application Form for payment of arrears in case of death of applicants husband are being filed together as Annexure-RA-1.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused entire records including the written arguments filed by both the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant, while arguing the case has laid much stress interalia, on the point that pension, Gratuity, Commutation etc. are liable to be paid on the basis of nominations made under rule 53 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 by the deceased Govt. servant in case of death and the nominations have been made by the husband of the applicant alongwith rejoinder (Annexure-RA-1 to the written arguments). It is also submitted that family pension is to be paid under Rule 54 of (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not under other rules (Annexure A-2 to Written Arguments). Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that interest as claimed is liable to be paid as held in the case of R.C. Srivastava Vs. Union of India and others in O.A. No.1229 of 2009 decided by this Tribunal by order dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure-A3 to the written arguments). He has further argued that in the case of Chander Kanta Vs. Monika reported in 2001(1) ATJ (P& H H C) it has been held that devolution of these accruals will be governed not by succession Act but by Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, has on the other hand, argued that the applicant could not produce any document to establish that she is the eldest or only surviving widow of the deceased and therefore, her case could not be processed, because as per the MbPT Pension Regulations family
7. The only ground for not processing the claim of the applicant for family pension is that the applicant could not prove that she is the eldest or only surviving widow of the applicant because in the registration form the name of one Ms Zubeda has been mentioned. From the perusal of documents annexed to rejoinder it is amply clear that the applicant had filed nomination papers, family particulars, statement of family members and nominations made for arrears of commuted value which have been signed by the applicant. These papers have been provided to the applicant by the respondents under RTI Act.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, I agree with the learned counsel for the applicant because the claim of the applicant is fully supported by the documents mentioned above. I, therefore hold that the applicant is entitled to family pension and other dues payable to her with interest at the prevalent rate from the date the amount became due, till the date of payment, within three months from the communication of this order. The O.A. is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Member-A s.a ??
??
??
??
1