Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ashok Kumar Gill vs M/O Railways on 8 April, 2024
1- O.A. No. 664/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/664/2021
Pronounced on: 08.04.2024
Reserved on: 01.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Ashok Kumar Gill s/o Ram Parkash, aged 60 years, retired as Chief
Health Inspector on 31.05.2021 at Station Firozpur Cantt, Firozpur
(Punjab), R/o H. No. 984/B, Arjun Nagar Lado Wali Road, Jalandhar
(Punjab) - 144001, Group B
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi -110001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Firozpur Cantt,
District Firozpur-152004.
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Divisional
Railway Manager, Firozpur Cantt, District Firozpur-152004.
4. Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway Divisional Hospital,
Firozpur Cantt, District Firozpur (Punjab)-152002.
5. Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Divisional Office
Firozpur (Punjab).
6. Chief Staff Welfare Inspector, Northern Railway, Divisional Office
Firozpur (Punjab).
7. Asha Rani, aged 56 years, w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gill, R/o Quarter
No. 580, Double Story, Railway Colony, Ferozepur.
8. Nidhi Kumari, aged 27 years, D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gill, R/o
Quarter No. 580, Double Story, Railway Colony, Ferozepur.
... .Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, for R-1 to 6
Mr. Sandeep Siwatch for R-7 and 8)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
2- O.A. No. 664/2021
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) The impugned order dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure A-1) and 12.05.2021 (Annexure A-2), be declared as wholly illegal and arbitrary.
(ii) The respondents may be directed to release the retirement dues to the applicant without any further delay without compelling him to open a joint bank account with his wife with all consequential benefits and respondents may also be burdened with interest at 12% p.a for delaying and denying the retirement dues to the applicant in most illegal and arbitrary manner.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was initially appointed in the respondent department w.e.f. 07.09.1989 as Health Inspector at Railway Station Cantt, Firozpur. The applicant and his wife are having strained relationship for more than 24 years. His wife lodged a complaint No.139/2010 under Domestic Violence Act, in the Court of learned CJM, Agra, which was decided one sided vide order dated 13.01.2016 with the direction to the applicant not to indulge in domestic violence with his wife with further direction to pay 10,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and two children. The applicant filed divorce case bearing DMC No.144/2018 before the Court at Firozpur in 2018, which has been decided on 21.04.2023. The applicant was due for retirement on 31.05.2021, so he submitted the requisite documents on time. He submitted an undertaking dated 28.04.2021 stating that his wife is not co-operating for opening a joint account, therefore, he be given 3- O.A. No. 664/2021 exemption and the retirement benefits may be released to him in his single account, without any delay. The respondents replied vide letter dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure A-1) that according to Railway Rules joint account of (Husband and wife) is must, in the absence of this payment cannot be arranged, so arrange the same as early as possible, otherwise you will be responsible for delayed payment of dues. The applicant reiterated, vide letter dated 07.05.2021 (Annexure A-7) that due to pending divorce case, his wife is not co-operating with him for opening of joint bank account. The respondents vide a communication dated 12.05.2021 (Annexure A-2) again advised to furnish the relevant documents as early as possible for arranging settlement dues. Again vide letter dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure A-8), the applicant requested the respondents to arrange his settlement/Dues on his Single Bank Account.
3. The respondents no. 1 to 6 filed short reply stating that the Clause 6 of Form 8 under Rules 79(1)(c) 81(1) of the Railway Services Pension Rules 1993 and the Railway Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1993 provides that in case the Head of office is satisfied that it is not possible for the retiring railway servant to open a joint account for reason beyond his control, this requirement may be relaxed. However, the pendency of the divorce case between the applicant and his wife cannot be a reason beyond the control of the applicant for not opening a joint account. The issue of release of retiral benefits, Pension Payment Order Family Pension is also sub judice before the Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 755/2021 (Annexure R-1). An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for ad-interim injunction restraining the DRM/Ferozepur 4- O.A. No. 664/2021 Division from releasing the service/retirement benefits to the applicant till final disposal of the suit has also been filed. The respondents have received the said notice from the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Firozpur. However, it has also categorically been stated that in case the applicant makes a representation for relaxation to the competent authority, the same will be considered in accordance with law and the circumstances of the case.
4. The M.A. No. 30.2022 filed for impleadment of Respondents No. 7 and 8 was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.04.2022. The respondent no. 7 is the wife and respondent no. 8 is the daughter of the applicant. The respondents no. 7 and 8 filed a separate written statement. It has been stated that she being applicant's legally wedded wife is entitled to all the benefits admissible to the spouse of a railway servant. It has also been stated that the applicant never approached to his wife for opening joint account. The respondent no. 7 is ready to open a joint account on the condition that she will be granted all the benefits for which retired employee spouse is entitled.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the short reply filed by official respondents. While reiterating that the wife of the applicant is not cooperating with him for opening a joint bank account, it has been further added that the Chief Staff Welfare Inspector has also tried to persuade the wife of applicant for opening a joint Bank Account, but without any response.
6. By way of MA No.1929/2023, the applicant has placed on record the order of Civil Court and also provisional PPO issued by the respondents. The application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read 5- O.A. No. 664/2021 with Section 151 for ad-interim injunction has also been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure MA-1). Consequent thereto, the respondents have issued provisional pension to the applicant vide Annexure MA-2.
7. I have gone through the pleadings and considered the rival contention of learned counsel for both sides.
8. Admittedly, the applicant is legally wedded to respondent No. 7. The petition CIS No. 144/2018 filed u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 by the applicant for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed by the Principal Judge (Family Court) Ferozepur vide order dated 21.04.2023. The applicant has retired on 31.05.2021 and to seek his retiral benefits, the Railway Rules requires him to open a joint account with his spouse, so that retiral benefits could be released. The contention of the applicant is that his wife is not cooperating for opening the joint bank account, therefore, the retiral benefits be released to his Single bank account. Learned counsel for respondents no. 7 and 8 (applicant's wife and daughter) controverted that the wife of the applicant is ready to open a joint account on the condition that the entitled retiral benefits as admissible to the spouse be given to her. She also alleged that the applicant has solemnized second marriage without getting divorce from her and is having two children. From the material on record, it is evident that the applicant is having second wife namely Anita @ Nidhi (who filed application under Section 125 of Cr. PC (CNR No. 20260001095/2015, Case no. 321 of 29.04.2015, CIS No. MNT/345/2015to decided on 11.09.2017). From the pleadings and also after hearing both parties, it is clear that the only reason for non- 6- O.A. No. 664/2021 cooperation by the applicant's wife for opening a joint bank account is that she is apprehending that she would not get her legitimate right of her husband's service/retiral benefits. The respondent nos. 7 and 8 are getting maintenance on the strength of the court order. She has also averred in his written statement that she is ready to open the joint account on the condition that she gets admissible share of retiral benefits as applicant's spouse.
9. The para 6 of the Form 8, which is required to be filed and submitted by the railway servant at the time of retirement is reproduced hereunder:-
"In case the Head of Office is satisfied that it is not possible for the retiring railway servant to open a joint account for reason beyond his control, this requirement may be relaxed."
From the para 6 aforementioned, it is clear that the Head of the Office has been given the power to relax the condition of opening of joint account. The said power has not been exercised by the Head of the Office in the instant matter. Also, the official respondents in their written statement have stated that if the applicant makes a representation to the Competent Authority, the same will be considered in accordance with law and circumstances of the case. Further, any direction by this Tribunal to the Head of the Office at this stage to exercise discretion of relaxation in opening of joint account would be transgression into the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority.
10. In such peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no directions are required to be given by this Tribunal as the relevant rule 7- O.A. No. 664/2021 has given ample power to the Head of the Office to consider such circumstances and take a decision for release of retiral benefits. Therefore, the applicant is directed to approach the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance by giving true details of the facts. The Head of the Office, on receipt of such representation, shall make a sincere effort to afford hearing to the applicant and his wife on the issue and choose the right course in the matter, so that the employee and his family get the admissible relevant benefit, as per the Rules. The directions be complied with within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Original Application is disposed of. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) 'mw'