Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Brijesh Devi vs M/O Railways on 18 April, 2023
1
OA No. 79/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Original Application No. 79/2019
Order reserved on: 10.04.2023
Date of order: 18.04.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, MEMBER (J)
Brijesh Devi W/o Sunil Singh Yadav (widow of Late Vinod
Kumar working on the post of Khalasi at Bharatpur Junction,
WCR Kota Division), aged 31 years, R/o 803, Durga Nagar,
Bharatpur.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Govind Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India, through through General Manager, West
Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP) 482002.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota
Division-324006.
3. Assistant Personal Officer, West Central Railway Kota
324006.
4. Sr. Section Engineer, West Central Railway Bharatpur.
321001
...Respondents
(By Adv: Shri N.C. Goyal)
2
OA No. 79/2019
ORDER
Per Mrs. Hina P. Shah The Original Application No. 79/2019 has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
(i) quash and set aside the impugned order dated 8.3.2014 (Annex.A/1) issued by the respondents.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to restore the family pension of the applicant from the date of stop the same with all consequential benefits and also pay arrears thereof with interest;
(iii) The respondents may also be directed to refund the recover amount to the applicant with interest.
(iv) Any other order or direction which deems fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant.
2. The facts as stated by the applicant is that her husband Late Shri Vinod Kumar was working as Khalasi at Bharatpur Junction under West Central Railway Kota Division and during the course of service he died on 29.05.2006. It is submitted that the husband of the applicant left behind him only applicant and therefore after death of her husband, applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds as well grant of family pension. Respondents issued PPO to the applicant and also have granted appointment on 3 OA No. 79/2019 compassionate grounds. Since applicant was not having any issue with her deceased husband, Shri Vinod Kumar, applicant remarried Shri Sunil Singh on 29.04.2013. She provided the said information of her remarriage to the respondents vide letter dated 19.12.2013 and 11.03.2014. Applicant states that after death of her husband, she was continuously getting family pension up to 13.10.2013. But, after sending information of her remarriage, respondents stopped her family pension vide impugned order dated 08.03.2014 (Annexure-A/1) and also issued recovery order of Rs. 39620/- against the applicant regarding family pension received by her after remarriage i.e. from 29.04.2013 to 13.10.2013 and the same has also been deducted from her salary. Applicant relies upon the judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench dated 10.09.2018 in Original Application No. 2822/2016 in case of Renu Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors. wherein it was held that widow of a deceased government servant, is eligible for family pension even if she remarries. Pertaining to the delay in filing the present Original Application, applicant states that since the applicant is seeking family pension, there is no question of any limitation in approaching this Tribunal. Further, she has filed a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present Original Application and the same to be considered.
4OA No. 79/2019 2 (b) Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.03.2014 and the action of the respondent in not restoring her family pension, she has preferred the present Original Application for redressal of her grievances.
3. The respondents have stated that the applicant on death of her husband, Shri Vinod Kumar, have granted benefits of compassionate appointment and she was posted on the post of Khalasi having monthly income of more than Rs. 9000/-. She entered in remarriage and therefore, the income earned by the applicant is sufficient for her livelihood. It is further submitted that childless widow of a deceased railway employee shall be continued to be paid family pension even after remarriage subject to condition that the family pension ceases once her income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension along with dearness relief. In such cases, the family pensioner has to declare her income from other sources to the pension disbursing authority every six months. Since in the present case, income of the applicant is more than Rs. 9000/- per month therefore, she was rightly denied family pension as per rules. Therefore, since the action of the respondents is just and proper, the Original Application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.
5OA No. 79/2019
4. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant rebutting the submissions made by the respondents.
5. Before going into the merits of the case, it is seen that the applicant has filed Miscellaneous Application No. 947/2019 for condonation of delay in approaching this Tribunal. It is contention of the applicant that she being a widow of the deceased government servant is entitled for family pension after remarriage, but could not challenge the impugned order in time. It is the contention of the applicant that since she has come across the judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in case of Renu Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors., she has approached the respondents time and again for restoring her family pension. But, since respondents did not take any action, a legal notice was sent to the respondents. It is clear that there is a delay of total 1798 days in filing the present Original Application from the date of impugned order dated 08.03.2014 but since delay is not intentional and due to unawareness, the said delay deserves to be condoned. The respondents have filed reply to the said M.A. stating that the impugned order dated 08.03.2014 issued by respondent No. 4 is just and proper. The respondent have clarified that the applicant has not submitted any documentary evidence for continuously representing her case during the year 2014 to 2018. It is 6 OA No. 79/2019 seen that through a legal notice in 2019 she has approached the respondents. The applicant has failed to explain the delay in filing the present Original Application and the said delay on day to day basis is un-explained. It is further stated by respondents that no specific or cogent reason for condoning the delay has been given by the applicant except that the applicant became aware of the judgement in case of Renu Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors. Therefore, the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed on limitation on the ground of delay alone as per Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. In the present Original Application, we find that since the husband of the applicant expired in 2006, the applicant was getting her family pension as well as she was also appointed on compassionate grounds as Khalasi by the respondents and she was working with them as Khalasi. We find that the applicant was getting pension up to 13.10.2013 but after providing details of her remarriage, the pension granted to the applicant from 29.04.2013 to 13.10.2013 was deducted from her salary. Though the impugned order was passed by the respondents on 08.03.2014, applicant has approached the Tribunal only in 2019. We do not find any cogent reason given by the applicant for condoning the delay. The only reason provided by the applicant for condoning the 7 OA No. 79/2019 delay is unawareness of receipt of family pension even after remarriage cannot be accepted, but, in the interest of justice, the delay in approaching this Tribunal is condoned.
7. On merits, we find that the applicant after death of her husband was considered by the respondents and she was given appointment on compassionate grounds and was posted on the post of Khalasi having her monthly income more than Rs. 9000/-. We find that the applicant was not having any issue from her earlier marriage and find that the applicant has remarried with Shri Sunil Singh on 29.04.2013. The details of the remarriage were provided by the applicant to the respondents. Respondents have thereafter passed the impugned order dated 08.03.2014 (Annexure-A/1) wherein it is stated that after her remarriage, her family pension was stopped and also recovery was ordered from her pay for the period from 29.04.2013 to 13.10.2013.
8. After going through the contents of letter pertaining to stoppage of family pension after her remarriage cannot be agreed. But as per rules, it is clear that a child less widow of a deceased railway employee shall be continued to be paid family pension even after remarriage. But, there is a proviso to this rule that the family pension ceases once her income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension along with dearness 8 OA No. 79/2019 relief. In such cases, it is very clear that family pensioner has to declare her income from other sources to the pension disbursing authority every six months. From the present case, we find that the income of the applicant is more than Rs. 9000/- per month and thereafter she was rightly denied family pension as per the said rules on the subject. It is very clear that the applicant after remarriage is entitled for family pension but as per rules, it is very clear that if her income is more than RS. 9000/- per month and also her income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension along with dearness relief then she ceases to get family pension. In the present case, we find justification in the stand of the respondents since family pension of the applicant exceeds and crosses the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of the rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon as per rules which is a per the Notification dated 23.09.2013.
9. After going through the judgement relied upon by the applicant in case of Renu Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors., it is clear that the same cannot be applied to the present case as in that case the applicant was not given compassionate appointment by the respondents and it is only after remarriage, the respondents had stopped her family pension. But, in the present case, the respondents have granted the 9 OA No. 79/2019 applicant compassionate appointment and as her monthly income was more than Rs. 9000/-, her family pension needs to be stopped as it is very clear that in case the income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension along with dearness relief. Thus, it is clear that the case of Renu Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors. cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
10. In view of the observations made above, it is very clear that the Original Application being devoid of merits does not deserves any interference and we find that the impugned order dated 08.03.2014 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the respondents is just and proper. Accordingly, Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous Application No. 467/2022 has been filed by the respondents for taking document i.e. Notification dated 23.09.2013 on record. The same is taken on record. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /ysm/