Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
G Sundari vs Southern Railway on 10 February, 2023
1 OA 1110/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1110/2021
Dated Friday the 10th day of February,Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORUM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
G.Sundari,
D/o. Late C.Subramani,
No.16, Ponnuvelpuram, 3rd Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023 ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s V.Chinnasamy
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep., by The General Manager,
Southern Railway, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Chief Workshop Manager,
Loco Works, Southern Railways,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023.
3.The Assistant Personal Officer,
O/o. The Chief Workshop Manager,
Loco Works, Southern Railways,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 023 ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr.K.Rajendran
2 OA 1110/2021
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"To call for the records culminating into the impugned order dated 02.04.2021 and set aside the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to grant Family Pension to the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in nutshell are as under:
The applicant's father late C.Subramani served the Railways as Fitter Grade II and retired on superannuation on 31.10.1985. He was granted pension and he was drawing the same till his death on 25.03.1996 and after his death his wife, i.e., the applicant's mother Late.S.Rajammal was drawing family pension. The applicant was married to one Ganesan on 07.07.1988. The marriage did not survive long and her husband deserted her during the year 1997 itself. The applicant's mother expired on 23.12.2015 and at that time the applicant and her daughter and son were solely dependent on her mother. After the death of her mother, the applicant approached the respondents for family pension by submitting a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Purasaivakkam dated 20.10.1997 certifying that she is a deserted woman. However, the applicant was asked to produce divorce order and hence she filed HMOP No.1419/2016 before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and the said court vide order dated 04.10.2017 granted divorce to the applicant. When the applicant approached the respondents for grant of family pension along with the divorce order, the impugned order dated 02.04.2021 has been passed by the respondents stating that the divorce 3 OA 1110/2021 petition has been filed in the year 2016 which is after the death of the applicant's mother and therefore the applicant is not eligible for family pension. Aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed the reply statement wherein they have submitted that the applicant's father expired on 25.03.1996 and her mother expired on 23.12.2015. The applicant has filed the divorce petition in the year 2016, vide OP No.1419/2016 before I Additional Family Court at Chennai after the death of her parents. Hence in the view Railway Board's letter No.F(E)III/2007/PN1/5 dated 23.08.2017 (RBE 102/2017) she is not entitled for grant of family pension in the capacity of a divorced daughter of late C.Subramani and hence the impugned order of rejection is justifiable under law and hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. Heard both sides and perused the OA along with relevant records.
5. To consider the issue involved in the matter it is necessary to record some dates. The father of the applicant who was the ex-employee of the respondents expired on 25.03.1996. After his death, the family pension has been granted to the applicant's mother and she died on 23.12.2015. The marriage between the applicant and one Mr.Ganesan was solemnized on 07.07.1988 during the life time of her father, i.e., the deceased employee.
Out of this wedlock two children G.Vadivel and G.Mohana were born to them. It is to be noted that subsequently in the year 1997 the applicant's husband deserved her thereby to get some job under the Social Welfare Scheme , the applicant approached the Revenue authority, i.e., the Tahsildar, Purasaivakkam, Perambur, Chennai thereby by certificate dated 20.10.1997 4 OA 1110/2021 the Tahsildar has certified that the applicant is a deserted woman and the said certificate has been issued for the purpose of getting employment only.
6. It is to be noted that bare perusal of the said certificate proves that the applicant's husband has deserted her and she wanted to survive with her children by getting some employment under the Social Welfare Security Scheme. It is to be noted that after the death of the family pensioner Smt.S.Rajammal, i.e., the applicant's mother on 23.12.2015, the Revenue Department by legal heirship certificate dated 17.11.2016 has mentioned that the applicant's status is deserted by her husband. After the death of the applicant's mother as she was dependent upon her mother, she has approached the authorities for grant of family pension. However the respondent authorities have advised to obtain divorce from the appropriate Family Court on the ground that they will not consider the certificate issued by the Tahsildar alone as a conclusive evidence whereby the applicant has approached the I Additional Family Court, Chennai by filing HMOP No.1419/2016 and prayed for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13(1)
(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on the ground of desertion. It is to be noted that by its order dated 04.10.2017, the I Additional Family Court, Chennai has recorded that the applicant's husband left the matrimonial home on 20.09.1997 and deserted the applicant and children. Inspite of the notice served upon the applicant's husband none appeared and taking that into consideration the court proceeded ex-parte and after perusing the evidence allowed the petition filed by the applicant and decree of divorce is passed dissolving the marriage solemnized between the applicant and her husband on 07.07.1988.
7. After the said divorce decree, the applicant has again approached the authorities by request letter dated 27.07.2018 and requested for family 5 OA 1110/2021 pension. The respondents have instructed the Revenue Inspector for an inquiry in respect of the said request of the applicant thereby inquiry has been conducted by the Revenue Inspector and by recording the facts that the applicant has been residing there in the said given address for the past 50 years and on 07.07.1988 she got married with one Mr.Ganesan of Broadway area, Chennai and due to family disputes, she had been separated from her husband during 1997 and since then she was living along with her mother Smt.S.Rajammal who died on 23.12.2015. It is further reported therein that also legal heirship certificate stands issued to her by the Revenue Authorities and the applicant was certified as a deserted woman and thereafter she also got divorce judgment from the Family court at Chennai. Accordingly, in his report dated 29.08.2018 he ascertained the facts and informed the respondents that pensionary benefits that was received by her mother may be disbursed to her on the ground of divorce of her husband.
8. It is to be noted that to the applicant's request the respondents have replied on 15.11.2018 and rejected her claim for grant of pension. Subsequently again she has submitted her request through All India SC/ST Railway Employees' Association, South Zone, Chennai vide their letter dated 30.01.2020 and also the same has been examined and rejected by the authorities on the ground that she does not fulfil the conditions laid down in the OM dated 19.07.2017, the relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:
"it has been decided to grant family pension to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death provided the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension under rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce."6 OA 1110/2021
9. It is to be noted that after verifying the facts, the Revenue authorities have issued a certificate dated 30.10.1997 declaring the applicant that she is a deserted woman and that certificate was issued to the applicant to get a job under the Social Welfare Security Scheme. The Tahsildar issued the said certificate in the capacity of Executive Magistrate who is empowered to issue certificate to woman that she was deserted by her husband only for getting benefits under Social Welfare Security Schemes and for getting priority in employment purpose. Thereby it is proved that the applicant was deserted in the year 1997 itself during the life time of the family pensioner. As far as concerned to the decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which came to be passed in the year 2017 therein the Family court has also considered the said certificate.
10. It is also to be noted that when the respondent authority has conducted the inquiry through Tahsildar even after perusal of the detailed report of the Tahsildar, the action of the respondent authorities in reiterating the same ground in their rejection order is illegal.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 310/00464/2017 dated 14.06.2018 in the matter of similarly situated person like the applicant one S. Vijayalakshmi wherein this Tribunal allowed the OA stating that there is no merit in the respondent's contention that the applicant should be deemed to have obtained legal divorce only from the date of the order of the court which inevitably was a date after the date of death of the father of the applicant and directed the respondents to process the case of the S.Vijayalakshmi for family pension. The said order is challenged by the respondent Railways before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in WP No. 9460/2019 and the Hon'ble 7 OA 1110/2021 High Court has confirmed the order passed by this Tribunal in the said OA 310/00464/2017. He has also relied upon the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.9/2021 on 24.03.2022 & OA 584/2022 on 04.08.2022, following the order passed in the case of S.Vijayalakshmi allowing the OA.
12. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP No.30341/2015 in the case of K.Ramesh Vs. The District Collector & Ors by its order dated 28.10.2021 has recorded that "The Tahsildar is empowered to issue certificate to a women that she was deserted by her husband only for getting benefits under Social Welfare Security Schemes and for getting priority in employment purpose." It means that according to these observations of the Hon'ble High court Tahsildar is empowered to issue such certificate and on the main ground that the applicant has been deserted during the life time of the family pensioner and she is dependent upon the family pensioner, she is entitled to claim the benefit. Therefore showing the said OM dated 19.07.2017 and on technical lines, the respondents have rejected the claim and hence the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
13. In the aforesaid circumstances and taking into consideration the order passed in OA No. 310/00464/2017 by this Tribunal in similar circumstances, in the matter of S. Vijayalakshmi Vs. UOI against the very same respondents and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in WP No. 9460/2019 and implemented by the respondents, the issue has attained finality. Further, following the above said order this Tribunal has already allowed OA 9/2021 & OA 584/2022 on similar lines and I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled for relief prayed for in this OA.
14. In view of the above discussion, the rejection orders dated 8 OA 1110/2021 15.11.2018 and 02.04.2021 are liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the same are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to process the case of the applicant for grant of family pension as she is eligible and entitled as per the citation supra, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
15. OA is allowed in the above terms. No costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 10.02.2023 MT