Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Smt Shankutala Devi vs Railway on 19 April, 2022
1 OA /051/00333/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
OA /051/00333/2019
CORAM
HON'BLE SHRI M.C.VERMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
DATE OF ORDER: 19.04.2022
Shakuntala Devi, aged about 52 years wife of late Prakash
Kumar resident of Villge- barmasia, P.o.P.o.- Dhanbad, P.S.
Dhansar, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
............Applicant
By advocate : Shri Rohit Ranjan Sinha
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern
Railway, Garden Reach, P.O.- Garden Reach, P.S West Port,
District- Kolkata-43
43 (West Bengal)
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway,
Adra, P.O & P.s. Adra, District- Purulia
Purulia-723121 (West Bengal)
3. Senior Divisional Finance Manager (Pension), Adra South
Eastern Railwy, Garden Reach, P.O. Garden Reach, P.S. West
Port District- Kolkata-700043
700043 (West Bengal)
4. Accounts Officer (Pension), Adra, F.A & C.A.O, Sourth Eastern
Railway, Garden Reach Kolkata--700043 (West Bengal).
..........Respondents
By Advocate : Shri M.K. Choubey
ORDER (ORAL)
Per M.C. Verma, Member (Judl.) :-
1. Matter is at admission stage hearing. Admit. Heard for final disposal.
2. Applicant Shakuntala Devi claiming herself to be the wife of Late Jay Prakash Kumar, deceased employee of the respondents has filed this OA for following reliefs ::-
2 OA /051/00333/2019 "8.(i) To direct the Respondents South Eastern Railway authorities to immediately and forthwith grant deathdeath-cum-retirement retirement benefits, including arrears of commuted ed pension, gratuity etc. of her deceased husband in her favour with interest @ 18% p.a. over & above the unpaid amount besides saddling the respondent Railways with cost & compensation; specially in view of the fact that the applicant is legally wedded wifefe of the deceased employee;
(ii) For any other relief or reliefs for which the applicant is legally entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above."
3. The case of the applicant, as has been set out in the OA precisely is that she is the only legally wedded wife of her deceased husband late Jay Prakash @ Jay Prakash Paswan and her husband, while was under treatment for septicemia at Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro died on 26.09.2012. That last posting of her husband was as Station Master at Railway Station Jamuniatand of Adra Division of South Eastern Railway, from where he has retired on 15.06.2006. It is also pleaded in OA that matrimonial dispute arose between her and her husband and she also lodged a Criminal iminal Case, bearing C.P.Case No. 697/2005 for the offences U/S 498A & 494 IPC against her husband. In said criminal case statement of her husband u/s 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded wherein her husband has denied his second marriage. That because of pendency ncy of said criminal case her husband was sanctioned only provisional pension and payment of commuted value of pension, payment of gratuity etc. has been kept pending by the employer Railway Department. That before conclusion of said criminal case her husb husband and died and 3 OA /051/00333/2019 resultantly criminal trial ended. That presently she is entitled to death cum retirement benefits of her husband as well amount of commuted pension, gratuity, provident fund and other admissible dues, which were payable to her husband.
4. Afterr notice respondents have filed written statement and it is stated therein that Shri Jay Prakash Kumar was compulsorily retired from Railway service on 15.06.2006, vide punishment notice dated 09.06.2006. That after compulsory retirement said jay Prakash Kumar umar submitted his settlement claim papers to disburse his settlement dues and in settlement claim papers he expressed his inability to provide name of any nominee due to court case for divorce of him with his first wife Shakuntala Devi (applicant). That two wo court cases, namely Criminal case no. 697/2005 U/S 498A, 494 of IPC and maintenance case no. 107/2006 were pending against late Jay Prakash Kumar. That due to pendency of said cases provisional pension was sanctioned in favor of Shri Jay Prakash Kumar and no commuted pension could be paid. Written statement also reveals that no further information, regarding conclusion of aforesaid judicial proceedings had been received either from Jay Prakash Kumar or from the applicant. That Jay Prakash Kumar has expired ired on 26.09.2012 and after demise of Jay Prakash Kumar family pension was not disbursed to any one due to none mention of any nominee.
4 OA /051/00333/2019
5. Ld. Counsel for applicant did urge that criminal trial against husband of applicant, after death of her husband has since abated and maintenance case has also been closed and hence at present there is no legal impediment for disbursement of death cum retirement benefit and DCRG of deceased employee to the legal heirs/person entitled to receive said benefit. He requests that O.A may be disposed of with direction to the respondents to finally settle the issue of retiral dues and other admissible dues/benefit of deceased Jay Prakash Kumar, the husband of the applicant and to make payment to the person entitled to with lega legally lly admissible interest.
6. Ld. Counsel for respondents submitted that because of pendency of criminal case retiral dues of late Jay Prakash Kumar could not be disbursed earlier but now criminal case/ trial has abated so he is having no objection for directio direction n for final settlement of retiral dues and other admissible benefit of deceased Jay Prakash Kumar.
7. Taking note of submission advanced and totality of facts and circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of with direction to respondents to take decision about the disbursement of retiral dues and amount of all other admissible benefits payable to late Jay Prakash Kumar and to pay the same to the persons found legally entitled to receive amount of said dues. In case, it 5 OA /051/00333/2019 is found that the delay and latches has been on the part of department, interest on payable amount shall also be paid to the entitled person. This entire exercise shall be completed by the respondents expeditiously and if possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say the applicant as well shall render all possible cooperation.
8. With said observations & direction the OA stand disposed of.
[Sunil Kumar Sinha ] [ M.C. Verma ]
Member (A) Member (J)
mks