Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna

Rita Devi vs Bsnl on 18 January, 2024

                           -1-                             OA/05100183/2021




                 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                          PATNA BENCH
                      CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI
                        OA/051/00183/2021

                                                Date of Order: 18.01.2024

                          CORAM
    HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
       HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

   1. Rita Devi w/o Late Ishram Singh aged about 48 years
   2. Miss Sangita Kumari,
   3. Miss Poonam Kumari
   4. Deepak Kumar Devikar
       All are the daughters and son of the Late Ishram Singh & Rita Devi,
all are resident of Vidya Nagar, Road No. 3, near Hanuman Mandir, P.O.-
Harmu, P.S:- Harmu, P.S:- Sukhdeo Nagar, District:- Ranchi.


                                                    ....       Applicants.
By Advocate:- Mr. Anis Khan
                                  -Versus-
   1.    Union of India through Directorate General, Bharat Sanchar
         Bhawan, BSNL, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
   2.    General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, A.R.T.C.C
         Complex, Near Jumar River, Ranchi-834003.
   3.    Sr.   Accounts    Officer    (Pension),   Department    of
         Telecommunication, Office of Controller of Communication
         Account (CCA), ARTCC Complex, Near Jumar River, Ranchi-
         834003.
                                               ....   Respondents.

By Advocate(s): - Shri Amit Sinha, ASC for Shri Rajendra Krishna, Sr. SC for
                  R - 1 & 3.
                  Shri A.K. Jha for R-2

                                 ORDER

[ORAL] Per S.K. Sinha, A.M.:- Instant OA has been preferred by four applicants, viz. wife and three children of Late Ishram Singh. It transpires

-2- OA/05100183/2021 from the OA that Late Ishram Singh was a Cable Splicer in BSNL appointed on 30.01.1958. He was married to Sheo Kumari Devi and from her no child was born. Ishram Singh married with applicant no. 1 during the lifetime of his first wife in 1985 but he gave no information to the department regarding his marriage. From the wedlock of Applicant No. 1 two daughters and one son were born. Late Ishram Singh retired on 29.02.1996 and was paid the retirement dues and pension. The first wife Sheo Kumari Devi died on 24.12.2003 during the lifetime of Late Ishram Singh. On 29.06.2009, Ishram Singh made a representation to the respondent' department informing about his second wife and children. Less than six months later he died on 05.12.2009. After his death Applicant No. 1 requested for family pension in her favour w.e.f. 05.12.2009 and when no action was taken by respondents she came to this Tribunal in OA 744/2018 which was disposed of on 13.09.2018 with direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Complying with the direction of the Tribunal respondents' department passed order on 09.12.2019 (Annexure/7) rejecting her case. Aggrieved with the speaking order, applicants have preferred this OA praying for following reliefs:-

"(i) To quash the order dated 09.12.2019 (Annexure/7) in respect of that the family pension to applicant no. 1 has been denied.
(ii) To direct the respondents to pay the family pension benefit to the applicant no.1 in lieu of death of her husband on 05.12.2009 with arrears as well as post death benefit in respect of applicants with interest.
(iii) Any other order/s, direction/s as Your Lordships may deem fit & proper in the interest of justice.''
2. Contesting the OA respondents filed a written statement in which they have maintained that the name of applicant no. 1 is not there in the
-3- OA/05100183/2021 family details submitted by Late Ishram Singh while in service. The family details provided by him covered only the name of Sheo Kumari Devi.

Respondents also mentioned that the name of Sangita Kumari (daughter), Poonam Kumari (daughter) and Deepak Kumar (son) was also mentioned in family details submitted by the late official in the service book. Eligibility of family pension is required to be decided by the BSNL headquarter and pension sanctioning authority. In compliance with the direction of the Tribunal, the General Manager, Telecom District, Ranchi Issued a speaking order on 09.12.2019 rejecting the case of Applicant No. 1 for family pension.

3. We heard the counsel for parties and considered their submissions and materials on record.

4. Shri Anis Khan, counsel for applicant submits that applicant no. 1 being the second wife was entitled for family pension. To a specific query on what basis late Rita Devi claims herself to be the second wife of the applicant, L/c submits that because of ignorance they could not keep any documentary evidence of the marriage. L/c also stated that the Applicant No. 1 has not approached any family court for grant of succession certificate by the competent legal authority.

5. Counsel for respondent no. 2 Shri A.K. Jha submits that in compliance with the Tribunals order in OA 744/2018, Divisional Engineer (Admn.), GMTD, Ranchi has passed a detailed speaking order. As there was no request from the late Ishram Singh for change of family details, therefore, her claim cannot be accepted. If applicant no. 1 was the second wife she could also have obtained legal succession certificate from the

-4- OA/05100183/2021 family court but she has not done the same and that in view of these the respondents cannot grant family pension in favour applicant no. 1.

6. Shri Amit Sinha, counsel for Respondents also echoed the same view as counsel for respondent no. 2.

7. Considered the submission. The order passed by Divisional Engineer(Admin), GMTD, Ranchi is an elaborate order considering various aspects of the case. It clearly mentions that there was no request from Late Ishram Singh for inclusion of Applicant No. 1 as his wife. Form- 3 attached with the speaking order shows the name of Sheo Kumari Devi as wife, Sangita Kumari and Poonam Kumari as daughters and Deepak Kumar as his son. Despite the rejection of her prayer for family pension by the respondents in the speaking order dated 09.12.2019, Applicant No. 1 made no effort to obtain succession certificate from the competent legal authority.

8. In view of the facts mentioned above, we are of the view that applicants have failed to adduce any ground for us to intervene in the speaking order and that the OA is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, OA is dismissed as devoid of merit. No cost.

       sd/-                                               sd/-
[AJAY PRATAP SINGH]                              [SUNIL KUMAR SINHA]
   Judicial Member                               Administrative Member
Srk.