Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Saraswati Devi vs General Managar, N Rly on 7 March, 2024
(Reserved on 23.02.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 7th day of March, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Original Application No.776 of 2018
Smt. Saraswati Devi, Aged about 56 years, Widow of Late Brij Nath
Yadav, Village - Gorsar, P.S.- Jahanaganj, Dist.- Azamgarh.
. . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri Manas Bhargava
Shri Sunil
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway,
Boroda House, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, (P), Lucknow Division,
Lucknow.
3. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
4. Smt. Chandrawati wife of Brij Nath R/o House No. 240,
Village- Sarauda, Police Station - Chiriakat, District - Mou, Presently
residing of Chiriyakat, Malanaganj, P.S. Chiriayakat, District - Mau.
i. Urmila D/o Late Chandrawati R/o Chiriyakat Maulanaganj,
PS..- Chiriyakat, Dist. - Mau.
ii. Paras S/o Late Chandrawati R/o Chiriyakat, Maulanaganj,
P.S. Chiriyakat, Dist- Mau.
iii. Prem S/o Late Chandrawati R/o Chiriyakat, Maulanaganj,
PS. Chiriyakat, Dist.- Mau.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate : Shri K K Ojha
ORDER
This OA is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 claiming relief to quash impugned PPO dated March, 2018 newly issued by the respondents and communicated to the Punjab National Bank, New Delhi mentioning the name of one Smt. Chandrawati to receive family pension who is complete stranger to the petitioner and deleting the name of the petitioner there from which was duly entered in the earlier PPO issued on 25.03.2009 as per the family details given by her husband and to direct the respondents to continue to pay the petitioner family pension together with allowances thereon as per Rules from time to time w.e.f. May, 2018 and further to pay to continue the same in future and to act only in accordance with law and to grant any other relief which this Tribunal deemed fit and also award cost.
2. The facts of the case of the applicant are that the husband of the applicant late Shri Brijnath Yadav had been working as Loco Pilot in the respondent department and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.2008. The applicant claimed to be legally wedded wife of late Brij Nath Yadav. The deceased employee was getting monthly pension but he died on 17.10.2017 at his residence i.e. village Lakhipur, District Sultanpur. The name of the applicant was duly entered by the late husband of the applicant in the Page 2 of 12 family details as his wife and was also authorized by nominating her name to receive the terminal benefits. The PPO dated 25.03.2009 was issued by the respondents to the late husband of the applicant while he was alive wherein the name of the applicant has also been referred and mentioned authorizing her to be paid family pension in the event of death of the pensioner i.e. late husband of the applicant Brij Nath Yadav. Under the strength of the above PPO of 2009, the applicant was duly allowed family pension at the appropriate rate w.e.f. 18.10.2017 and it was being paid month to month upto May, 2018 and thereafter the same has been suddenly changed without any notice, enquiry or giving opportunity to the applicant of being heard.
3. The applicant gives other collateral documents like the family Register maintained at the Village Lakhipur issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Gram Panchayat Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Lakhipur, District Sultanpur wherein the family details of the late Brij Nath Yadav, the husband of the applicant shows her name and her children. She alleges that the Bank Authorities vide impugned PPO dated March, 2018 informed that the Railway Administration has deleted the name of the applicant from the PPO and have issued to the Bank a new PPO wherein the name of Smt. Chandrawati in place of applicant's name for family pension has been there. The applicant is completely unaware about the reasons of non-payment and stoppage of family pension and as she is the legally wedded wife and her name Page 3 of 12 was earlier there in the PPO and she received the pension which could not have been abruptly discontinued respondents department and the Bank. Hence, her prayer should be allowed by allowing the OA.
4. On notice, the respondents have filed their counter reply wherein they agree with the most of the facts of the case that Late Brij Nath Yadav, Ex. Loco Pilot/mail retired on 31.07.2008 from the respondents' department but they averred that he was married with Smt. Chandrawati Devi but at the time of the retirement he wrongly filled the name of Saraswati Devi in 'form 6' in wife column in place of 'Chandrawati Devi'. When this came to the knowledge of respondent no. 4 Smt. Chandrawati Devi, wife of Late Employee Brij Nath Yadav, she filed O.A. No. 204 of 2014 before CAT, Allahabad for getting it corrected wherein the order was passed on 17.02.2014 and the Tribunal directed the respondents to give a detailed speaking reasoned order to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. And in compliance of the above mentioned order, the respondents sent a letter to employee (Brij Nath Yadav) to provide fresh family declaration vide their letter dated 19.03.2015 and after receiving the family declaration letter afresh from the employee dated 30.03.2015, the same was sent on 01.04.2015 to the respondent No. 4 (Smt. Chandrawati Devi) for her objection, if any. On the basis of family declaration of Late employee Brij Nath Yadav and no objection from Page 4 of 12 the respondent no. 4, office corrected the name of Smt. Chandrawati Devi in place of Sarswati Devi and issued the revised PPO for the compliance of CAT order dated 17.02.2014.
5. Hence, the department argued that the revised PPO is correct and there is no right to the applicant to challenge the same and also she is not a necessary party. There was no necessity to give her separate notice as her name was wrongly entered in the retirement documents by the deceased husband and employee Shri Brij Nath Yadav which he himself corrected after on the direction in the OA. Only there was delay in the communication of the correct information to the Bank and it was wrongly earlier communicated to the Bank, the PPO with the name of the present applicant.
6. Hence, the second PPO is just, legal and valid and required no interference from this Court and the OA should be dismissed.
7. Rejoinder has been filed for the applicant wherein she reiterates her facts as in the OA where she emphasized the impugned PPO was revised by the respondent no. 2 without providing the opportunity of hearing to the applicant and she again says that the Pension Payment Order dated 11.07.2017 to Punjab National Bank CPPC Link Office (Pension) (First Floor) B/o Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh New Delhi which clearly shows the name of the applicant as wife in dependent family members details. Hence, the applicant argues that she has a case and she should get an opportunity to be heard and the PPO Page 5 of 12 should be continued in her name and she should get the family pension. Hence, OA should be allowed.
8. The case came up for final hearing on 23.02.2024, Shri Sunil, counsel for the applicant and Shri K K Ojha, counsel for the respondents were present and heard.
9. I have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
10. From the record, it is evident that one Shri Brij Nath Yadav, the deceased employee of the respondents' department retired on 31.07.2008 and he died on 17.10.2007 which fact is not denied.
11. Further, from the order in OA No. 204/2014 wherein the order was passed on 17.02.2014 where Smt. Chandrawati Devi, wife of Shri Brij Nath Yadav was the applicant and Saraswati Devi was respondent no. 5 who is the present applicant in this OA was also a party. In the said OA, following orders were passed:-
"Shri V.P.Mishra proxy for Shri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, counsel for the applicant. Shri Anil Kumar, appeared on behalf of respondents after getting advance notice.
2. This is a case where it is not disputed that the applicant is a legally wedded wife of respondent no. 5 Shri Brij Nath who was working as Loco Pilot (Male) under Northern Railway. It is seen from the pleadings that a case under section 125 Cr. PC was filed by the applicant herein and the court granted her the maintenance taking into consideration as a legally wedded wife of Shri Brij Nath which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court at page no. 47 of the original application. It is the contention of the counsel for the applicant that just before the retirement the respondent no. 5 Page 6 of 12 has given a declaration for substituting the name of the applicant herein by one Smt. Saraswati Devi as his wife. Knowing the fact the applicant herein preferred a representation before the respondents requesting not to entertain the declaration and delete the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi as wife as she is the legally wedded wife and also alive.
3. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to give a detailed speaking reasoned order to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. Accordingly, the original application stands disposed of. No costs.
Simple reading of the said order also gives that it was not disputed that the applicant Smt. Chandrawati was legally wedded wife of respondent no. 5 Shri Brij Nath Yadav who was working as Loco Pilot Mail in the Northern Railway and under section 125 CrPC the court had granted the legally wedded wife Smt. Chandrawati Devi a maintenance. Taking into consideration that she was legally wedded wife of Shri Brij Nath Yadav and which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is mentioned that at page no. 47 of the OA, those details were available and that just before the retirement the respondent no. 5 had given a declaration substituting the name of the applicant Smt. Chandrawati Devi by One Smt. Saraswati Devi as his wife and knowing the fact the applicant had therein preferred the representation before the respondents requesting not to entertain declaration and delete the name of Smt. Saraswati Devi as wife, as Page 7 of 12 Chandrawati Devi was the legally wedded wife and was still alive and getting maintenance from her husband, and hence the court had given direction to the respondents to give detailed speaking and reasoned order to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order.
12. The present applicant was respondent no. 6 in that case, the said averments are in para 6 of the respondents' counter wherein they had said that the Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to pass the order in OA No. 204 of 2014 and direct to the respondents to give a detailed speaking and reasoned order to the applicant within a period of Two Months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order. To which the applicant in her rejoinder in para 5 replies that the contentof the paragraph 5, 6, 7,8 and 9 of the counter affidavit cannot be replied due to lack of knowledge and the applicant has never appeared or has filed any document with respect to the same because, with respect to the same the applicant was not aware at any point of time and whatever proceedings has been initiated, was behind her back. It is further submitted that some fault or fraud has been committed by the said lady with connivance of the staff of the Railway as a result of which, without giving any information and show cause notice to the applicant such changes were made.
13. But as the present applicant was respondent no. 6 in OA No. 204/2014 where orders were passed on17.02.2014 and she has failed Page 8 of 12 to challenge it. Even after coming to this Tribunal in the present case, after filing of the counter the applicant certainly came to know of the earlier order in favour of the private respondent, but I do not find, the applicant has taken any step to challenge the same at appropriate forum. All proceedings pursuant to the said order in OA No. 204 of 2014 cannot be challenged at this stage in this case, in a different set of proceedings as impugned order is now final as it went without any challenge. Pursuant to the said OA, the Department gave a notice to the Brij Nath yadav, vide their letter dated 19.03.2015 in which the subject was मा. यायालय क य शास नक अ धकरण यायपीठ इलाहाबाद OA No. 330/204/2014 के अनप ु ालन के स ब ध म। and they have specifically asked following:-
"...आपक सेवा नवृ दनांक 31.07.2008 को लोको पैलटमेल/ SSE/LOCO/BSB से हुई है । उस समय आपने पशन फाम भरते समय अपने प रवा रक ववरण फाम नं.6 म ीमती च ावती दे वी प नी का नाम नह ं दशाया है । जब क आपका मामला प रवा रक ववाद का मा. यायालय पंचम अ त. स वल जज जू. डवीजन/ मिज. थम ेणी आजमगढ मुकदमा नं 215/91 ीमती च ावती दे वी बनाम बृज नाथ यादव म मा. यायालय वारा प नी व ब च को गुजारा भ ा दये जाने का आदे श पा रत हुआ था। िजसक त आपको भेजी जा रह है ।
जब क आपका प रवा रक ववाद का मामला मा. यायालय म वचाराधीन था तो भी आपने त य को छुपा कर प नी का नाम ीम त सर वती दे वी पशन फाम के प रवा रक ववरण फाम 10-06 म आपके वारा दशाया गया है ।
आपका प रवा रक ववाद का मामला मा. यायालय म वचाराधीन था उसके बाद भी आपने कन प रि थ तय म ीमती सर वती दे वी का नाम प नी के जगह पर दशाया है उसका प ट करण दे व.।
Page 9 of 12 अत: आपसे अपे ा कया जाता है क मा. यायालय मे आदे श के अनुपालन म आपको प रवा रक ववरण फाम न. 06 भेजा जा रहा है । उसम अपनी प नी ीमती च ावती दे वा का नाम व ज म त थ भरकर तुर त उपल य कराय। ता क ीमती सर वती दे वी का नाम पी पी ओ से हटाकर आपक प नी ीमती च ावती दे वी का नाम अं कत कया जा सके।
उपरो त म मांगी गयी सूचना तुर त इस कायालय को उपल ध कराये िजससे क अ म कायावाह क जा सके। और मां यायालय के अवमानना से बचा जा सके।"
And further a letter was also written to Smt. Chandrawati Devi dated 01.04.2015 which mentions the following:
... " वषयः माननीय क य शास नक अ धकरण, इलाहाबाद का ओ.ए. सं या 330/00204/2014 म दनांक 17.02.2014 को पा रत नणय/आदे श के अनुपालन के संबंध म। संदभः इस कायालय का दनांक 19.03.15 का समसं यक प ।
ा थनी वारा वषयगत वाद उनके प त ी बृजनाथ जो क लोको पायलट/मेल पद से दनांक 31.07.2008 को सेवा नवृ हुए थे, के प म जार पीपीओ म प नी के नाम के थान पर रखे जाने तथा ीमती सर वती दे वी का नाम हटाये जाने हे तु दायर कया गया था। माननीय अ धकरण वारा उ त वाद का न तारण करते हुए न न ल खत आदे श पा रत कये गये ह:-
"In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to give a detailed speaking reasoned order to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order."
माननीय अ धकरण के उ त आदे श के अनुपालन म आपके प त के सेवा व पशन संबंधी सम त प , आपके वारा वषयगत ओ.ए. म संल न प , ए डशनल स वल जज/जू नयर डवीजन/आजमगढ़ व पा रवा रक यायालय, आजमगढ़ वारा पा रत आदे श व अ य सभी द तावेज का अवलोकन कया गया। इस संबंध म उ लेखनीय है क आपके प त ी बृजनाथ, लोको पायलट (मेल)/वाराणसी ने अपने सेवा नवृ के पूव पशन प ( त संल न) म प नी के प म ीमती सर वती दे वी के नाम का उ लेख कया था एवं उसी के अनु प पा रवा रक पशन भुगतान हे तु पशन भुगतान आदे श (पीपीओ) म ीमती सर वती दे वी का नाम उि ल खत था।
आपके वारा उपल ध कराये गये उ त प के आधार पर आपके प त से इस कायालय के उपरो त संद भत दनांक 19.03.15 के प ( त संल न) के मा यम Page 10 of 12 से प ट करण मांगा गया व आव यक प रवार ववरण भरकर दे ने का आ ह कया गया। आपके प त ी बृजनाथ वारा उ त ववरण भरकर भेज दया गया है , िजसम उ ह ने प नी के प म आपके नाम का उ लेख कया है । उ त ववरण क त भी आपक सूचना हे तु े षत क जा रह है ।
इस संबंध म आपसे अनुरोध है क य द उपरो त प रवार ववरण से य द आपको कोई आप हो तो उसका अ वलंब उ लेख करते हुए इस कायालय को सू चत कर। य द आपको इस ववरण से कोई आप नह ं है, तो भी अपनी अनाप से इस कायालय को अवगत कराय, ता क पीपीओ म नाम प रवतन हे तु आव यक कायवाह अ वलंब सु नि चत क जा सके। "
And pursuant to which Shri Brij Nath Yadav, on 30.03.2015 wrote the following:
.... " आपको अवगत कराना है क ाथ के व ध प नी वारा
दायर वाद के स ब ध म माननीय यायालय वारा दये आदे श के
अनुपालन म मने पा रवा रक ववरण (फाम 6) एवं पास फाम प नी
ीमती च ावती का नाम पूण ववरण के साथ भर दया है ।"
Simple reading of this shows that pursuant to the said OA Brij Nath yadav had changed his form 6 and in place of Saraswati Devi the name of his first wife who was still alive and getting maintenance, Smt. Chandrawati Devi came to be in form 6 and other documents. And also like applications for post retirement passes were filled accordingly and in the name of family members clearly the name of Smt. Chandrawati Devi is available alongwith married daughters and sons Usha, Urmila, Paras and Prem. And based on the same in March, 2018 revised PPO was issued and the department exchanged that with the earlier PPO which was wrongly issued, without taking into consideration, the proceedings going on based on the order in the OA Page 11 of 12 No. 204/2014. When the fact being so, and the first wife was still alive and the marriage was sustained as she was getting maintenance even though separated; there was no possibility of the valid second marriage for the applicant with the Late Shri Brij nath Yadav. And hence, the applicant by merely showing some documents which were wrongly issued in her name cannot claim any right to get PPO in her name by claiming herself to be a validly married wife of late Shri Brij Nath Yadav.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the applicant has made out a convincing case for herself and put forth any ground to interfere with the decisions of the respondent department. And hence I pass following orders:-
Original Application is dismissed. All associated MAs stand disposed of. No order as to cost.
(Dr. Sanjiv Kumar) Member-A /Priyadarshana/ Page 12 of 12