Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Dasaratha vs Central Water Commission on 4 March, 2022
OA 1120/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA No. 1120/2019
HYDERABAD, this the 04th day of March, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
G. Dasaratha, S/o. Nagaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
Occ: Retired Observer Grade-II,
O/o. Site-45, Central Water Commission,
Perur, Khammam District, Telangana,
R/o. H.No.8-6-67/S/144, Flat No.401,
Amma Apartment, Srinivaspuram Colony,
Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad- 500 070.
...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Dr. A Raghu Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India, rep. by its Chief Engineer,
Central Water Commission,
Krishna-Godavari Basin Organization,
11-4-648, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad- 500 004.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Central Water Commission, Godavari Circle,
11-4-648, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad- 500 004.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Central Water Commission,
Lower Godavari Division,
11-4-648, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad- 500 004.
... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. K Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG.)
---
Page 1 of 4
OA 1120/2019
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member) Through Video Conferencing:
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing pension and Pensionary benefits of the applicant who retired on 31.07.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and rules on the subject matter and consequently direct the respondents to release the pension and Pensionary benefits forthwith with an interest of 24% PA from the date it is due in the interest of justice, and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The applicant worked with the respondents as Khalasi in the Central Water Commission, Bhadrachalam. On 31.07.2018, the applicant retired from service. His pension papers were returned by the authorities as his wife's signature was not there on pension papers. He has submitted a petition before the Hon'ble President of India and also before the Chairman, Central Water Commission to release pension and Pensionary benefits. The applicant's wife has refused to sign the pension papers because of the matrimonial disputes. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even without the signature of his wife on pension papers, the applicant is entitled for pension and other benefits and also even if signature was not done by his wife on pension papers, she is a legal wife of the applicant and she is entitled for family pension unless or otherwise decided by a competent court.
3. Notices were issued. Mrs. K Rajitha, learned counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed reply. In the reply, it is submitted that the Page 2 of 4 OA 1120/2019 applicant has not submitted papers within the prescribed time and his wife's signature is not there and the PAO, CWC has returned the case of pension with service book with certain remarks for compliance of the applicant viz.
1) Submission of the Mandate form; 2) Present status of the Court Attachment Order amounting to Rs.14,95,333 in Hon'ble Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. The same was communicated to the applicant vide LGD letter dt. 19.11.2019. The applicant has not responded to the communication. Had he complied with the remarks, the case could have been forwarded to PAO, CWC, New Delhi by the 3rd Respondent who is the Head of Office. The above are the grounds basically taken by the respondents for not releasing the pension.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has apprised this Tribunal that the provisional pension is already granted to the applicant and requested that the MA be closed. Accordingly, MA No. 109/2020 is closed.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings on record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar., [1971] Suppl. SCR 634 held that pension is not bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the Govt.; instead the right to pension is valuable right vested in a Govt. servant. The applicant who has rendered service for so many years is entitled for pension and cannot be withheld for any ground whatsoever. In the present case, signature of his wife is not there and he has not submitted pension papers within time. It is only an official obligation to complete formality within a prescribed time but that cannot again deprive the legitimate right of getting pension. With Page 3 of 4 OA 1120/2019 regard to non-signature on pension papers by his wife, it is not a ground for denying the pension as there is matrimonial dispute which can be decided in due course of time. With regards to the contention that there is Court Attachment Order amounting to Rs.14,95,333, be that as it may, though this Tribunal is not in agreement that the Civil Court has jurisdiction for attaching pension, since this order is passed by a Court, let it be challenged before the appropriate forum.
7. This Tribunal is of the view that leaving aside the Court Attachment Order, entire amount of pension shall be released to the applicant in accordance with law. However, it is further directed that though the signature of the applicant's wife is not there, the department shall verify it by other procedure in accordance with law and she should be taken as a legal heir for entitlement of pension. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
8. With the above observation, the OA is allowed without any order as to costs.
(ASHISH KALIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER /Ram/ Page 4 of 4