Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Koteswaramma Alias G Ammaji vs South Central Railway on 18 April, 2024
1
OA.No.217/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.020/00217/2023
ORDER RESERVED ON 01.12.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 18.04.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
G.Koteswaramma alias G.Ammaji
D/o. Lakhmanaswamy (Late)
Aged 51yrs, H.No.2-326, Railpet
Chennakesavanagar, Duggirala-522330
Guntur District.
Mobile 9246494425
Email ID [email protected] .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri G.Trinadha Rao)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by the General Manager
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam
3rd Floor, Secunderabad - 500 025.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager
Vijayawada Division
South Central Railway
Vijayawada.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
Vijayawada Division
South Central Railway
Vijayawada. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt.K.Rajitha, Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government)
2
OA.No.217/2023
ORDER
PER HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant has filed the present OA with a prayer to set aside the proceedings dated 03.02/03.2020 and to direct the respondents to sanction family pension in her favour from the date of death of her mother with interest at 18% with all consequential benefits of payment of arrears of pension.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the daughter of Railway employee late G.Lakshmana Swamy who had superannuated on 30.04.1977 while working as Shunting Jamadar in Railways of Vijayawada. He was granted with pension and on his death, his wife Smt.Varahalamma was granted with family pension. Later she also died. At the time of execution of family declaration, the Railway employee had declared one minor son and three unmarried daughters out of which two are minors. Prior to the execution of family declaration during 1977 one eldest daughter already died. After giving declaration one son namely Satyanarayana died. Unfortunately owing to Corona Pandemic during 2020-2021 two sons by name G.Chinna Rao and G.Arjuna Rao also died on 7.5.2021 and 17.04.2020 respectively after executing the affidavit during the year 2018 giving no objection for grant of secondary family pension in favour of the applicant who is unmarried dependent daughter with no source of income. Thus the family composition as of now consists of the applicant and two married daughters of the deceased Railway employee. Applicant having come to know that she was entitled to family pension on the death of her mother had submitted representation dated 6.2.2019 to the 3rd respondent duly enclosing all the requisite documents along 3 OA.No.217/2023 with Form No.10. She has also submitted an affidavit duly executed by all the family members on 28.06.2018 indicating no objection for grant of family pension to the applicant. But the said representation did not invoke any response. In terms of Railway Board's proceedings in RBE No.116 of 2007, dependent unmarried daughter beyond 25 years of the age shall also be eligible for family pension at par with widowed/divorced daughter subject to other conditions being fulfilled. Further as reiterated and provided in RBE No.69 of 2011 unmarried daughters of Government servant/pensioner beyond the age of 25 years are eligible for family pension even if their names do not appear in the details of family members submitted by the Government servant/pensioner to the Head Office from where he had retired and the same is payable only after the other eligible children below the age of 25 years have ceased to be eligible to receive the family pension and that there is no disabled child to receive the family pension. In the case on hand, the applicant fully fulfils the aforesaid conditions and hence entitled for secondary family pension on the death of her mother. Feeling aggrieved by non-consideration of her representation, the applicant filed OA.No.846/2019 which was disposed of by this Tribunal directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant within a time frame. In compliance to the said direction of this Tribunal, the respondents considered the representation and rejected the same vide order dated 03.02/03.2020 stating that in the study certificate submitted by the applicant, the study of 1 to 3 classes was 1967-1970 which was prior to date of birth of the applicant. In this context, it is submitted that the entries of years of the study 1 to 3 classes in the study certificate is a bonafide mistake committed by the Head Master, Mandal Parishad School while entering the year of study in class 1 to 3rd as 1967-1970 and the said mistake would no way destroy the relationship of the 4 OA.No.217/2023 applicant as daughter of the deceased employee. Aggrieved by the rejection, the applicant had filed OA.No.104/2022. While the said OA was pending adjudication, the applicant wants to rely on the document issued by Village Revenue Officer stating that Gurrapu Koteswaramma and Ammaji belong to one person only. The applicant at that juncture sought to withdraw the OA to file comprehensive fresh OA. Accordingly, the present OA is filed by the applicant.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, in their reply statement have contended that the ex-employee Late Sri G.Lakshmana Swamy, Ex-Shunting Jamedar, retired from service on 30.04.1977. Later he expired on 19.08.1988.His spouse Smt.Varahalamma, family pensioner also demised on 13.08.2007. In the declaration dated 17.05.1977 executed by the deceased employee after his retirement for the purpose of retirement benefits, he declared the names of his wife 'Gurram Varahalamma' aged 48 years, one minor son 'Gurram Satyanarayana' aged 14 years, two minor unmarried daughters 'Gurram Sriramulamma' aged 11 years and 'Gurram Ammaji' aged 15 years and one major unmarried daughter 'Gurram Lakshmi' aged 20 years. Amongst whom, there is no daughter by name G.Koteswaramma (applicant) to the deceased employee. The applicant has not submitted the correct documentary proof establishing her relationship with the ex- employee. The names shown in the affidavit dated 28.06.2018 are contradicting with the names of the family members declared by the ex-employee vide his declaration dated 17.05.1977. The applicant did not produce the death certificate of eldest daughter and Satyanarayana who are claimed as dead by the applicant. It is further submitted that the deceased employee did not declare the persons named G.Chinna Rao and G.Arjuna Rao as his sons and also that the applicant did not 5 OA.No.217/2023 produce any documents of G.Chinna Rao and G.Arjuna Rao that were inexistence or taken from any Government Authority during the life time of the deceased employee establishing their relationship with the deceased employee, therefore considering them as sons of the deceased employee based on their death certificates submitted by the applicant is absurd. The grant of family pension arises basing on the declaration of family particulars given by the ex-employee at the time of retirement or basing on the information given by the family pensioner during the life time. The applicant did not produce any document which was in existence or taken from any Government Authority during the life time of the deceased employee establishing her relationship with the deceased employee. The affidavits drafted by someone other than pensioner/family pensioner, that too, subsequent to the death of pensioner/family pensioner, declaring the family members of the deceased pensioner/family pensioner, cannot be relied upon to decide the family members for the grant of secondary family pension. Hence, the affidavit dated 28.06.2018 said to be executed by all the family members of deceased employee expressing no objection for allowing secondary family pension in favour of the applicant cannot be considered. The representation dated 09.12.2019 of the applicant was disposed of vide impugned order, hence the contention of the applicant that her representation did not invoke any response is false. The applicant submitted in her representation that she is an illiterate but she put signature so well both in representation and OA for which she furnished a Study Certificate dated 31.08.2018 issued by the HM, Mandal Parishad Primary School in the name of G.Koteswaramma and also Aadhar Card in the name of G.Koteswaramma with date of birth as 01.01.1972 in both documents. In the Study Certificate, the date of study of classes 1 to 3 was shown as 1967-70, which was 6 OA.No.217/2023 prior to her date of birth, which showcases that it is a false and fabricated documentation. The averment of the applicant that it is a bonafide mistake committed by the author i.e., Head Master, Mandal Parishad School while entering the year of study in class 1 to 3 as 1967-1970 in the Study Certificate dated 31.08.2018 is not tenable as it is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain the correct study certificate and submit the required correct documentary proof to establish her relationship as dependent unmarried daughter of the ex-employee. It is further submitted that the date of birth of the applicant shown in the study certificate dated 31.08.2018is 01.01.1972, as per which the age of the applicant will be 5 years as on the date of declaration dated 17.05.1977 of the deceased employee and there is no daughter aged 5 years to the deceased employee as on the date of declaration dated 17.05.1977. It is also pertinent to submit that as on the date of declaration dated 17.05.1977, the age of Gurram Ammaji is 15 years, which mean that she is no new born in order to think that at a later stage the name got changed or changed due to marriage, but it is not so in the present case as by the date of declaration she is unmarried and aged about 15 years. If the employee happens to name his daughter as Gurram Koteswaramma instead of Gurram Ammaji, he would have declared as such in his declaration dated 17.05.1977, which cannot be overlooked as it is crucial.Further in the Aadhaar Card and Study Certificate, the surname of the applicant is shown as 'Gurrapu' whereas the surname of the ex-employee is 'Gurram' as per his declaration dated 17.05.1977 which is contradicting one. When the deceased railway employee has no daughter by name G.Koteswaramma, as per the declaration given by ex-employee while in service during his life time, the study certificate and other documents submitted in the name of G.Koteswaramma by the applicant holds no relevance and do not 7 OA.No.217/2023 establish a legal relationship with the deceased railway employee. In terms of Railway Board's circulars No.181/1997 and 115/1998, the unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters are eligible for sanction of secondary family pension subject to fulfilment of other conditions and the responsibility of establishing the relationship as daughter lies with the applicant by producing proper authentic documentary evidence. And that the applicant has not submitted any document pertaining to Railway to establish identity as dependent unmarried daughter of the ex-employee. Hence, the relationship of the applicant with the ex- employee was not established with any documentary proof as unmarried dependent daughter and accordingly, the applicant's request for grant of secondary family pension was rejected as she is not eligible for the same as per Railway Rules. Hence, the OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard Sri G.Trinadha Rao, learned counsel for the Applicant and Smt.K.Rajitha, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Respondents, and perused the materials placed on record.
5. This is the third round of litigation by the Applicant who is the daughter of late G.Lakshmana Swamy, who superannuated on 30.04.1977. He got pension, died in 1988 and after his death, his wife Smt.Varahalamma also got the pension till her death in 2007. Applicant is claiming secondary family pension as she is a widowed daughter of the deceased employee after a gap of (12) twelve years. Her father had not declared her in the family composition in 1977. Her year of birth is 1972, but initially she has submitted a fake study certificate of 1967-70. She has also not given her income which must be below Rs.2500/- per month as per OM 8 OA.No.217/2023 No.1/19/03-P&PW (E) GOI, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare dated 06.09.2007.
6. The applicant has filed OA.No.020/00846/2019 for condonation of the delay in submitting her application for the grant of secondary family pension. The respondents were instructed to pass orders in accordance with RBE No.116/2007 dated 18.09.2007. Again she filed OA.No.104/2022 requesting ti file certain documents wherein the name of the applicant is shown as Ammaji instead of Koteshwaramma, but the applicant has withdrawn this case to file a fresh by taking every plea so that the respondents may get fair opportunity to controvert. After eleven (11) months of the withdrawal of the OA.No.104/2022, the applicant filed this OA wherein she submits that she is unmarried and dependent on her mother at the time of her death in 2007. She submitted her first application on 06.02.2019, after twelve years of the death of her mother. It is a question to be understood if she is dependent on her mother's pension, how she survived for these twelve years, and if she was dependent on mother, why she has not declared applicant's name in the official record.
7. As per RBE No. 116/2007, being unmarried daughter above 25 years of age, the applicant is eligible for family pension subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, but here the question under consideration is also her name which is found missing in family composition as given by the deceased on 17.05.1977. The ex-employee record shown the surname as 'Gurram', while the Aadhar Card of the 9 OA.No.217/2023 applicant and Tahsildar Certificate obtained on 01.08.2022, shows 'Gurrapu'. These two names cannot be the same. They are not matching. The applicant failed to establish her relationship with the deceased employee. The name correction must be get established by an appropriate Civil Court by the applicant. The applicant has attempted to produce variety of certificates from different authorities spread over a period from 2007 to 2022 and few of these certificates are found fake. It is very clear that the applicant is trying very hard to prove her eligibility so as to claim secondary family pension. But, in the absence of her proper name in family composition, it is not possible to accept her plea to quash the impugned order, which is right and very elaborately explained the reasons of rejection of applicant's request.
8. In these deliberations, no merit is found, hence, the OA is liable for dismissal. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( SHALINI MISRA ) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER PS/Dsn.