Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D Geetha Madhuri vs South Central Railway on 25 June, 2024
OA/536/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/020/536/2024
HYDERABAD, this the 25th day of June, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
D. Geetha Madhuri, W/o. G. Promod, Hindu, Aged 29 years,
R/o. D. No. 21-9-67, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist,
Andhra Pradesh-520011,
Mobile No. 9848072289, email: [email protected]
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. D. Ravishankar Rao)
Vs.
1. South Central Railway Rep. by its
General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad,
Telangana-500017.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad,
Telangana-500017.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South Central Railways, DRM Office, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh-520001.
4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer/The Welfare Officer,
South Central Railways, DRM Office,
Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh-520001.
5. Smt. Dhilli Raghavamma,
W/o. Late Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Aged 53 years,
R/o. D.No. 31-15-41/1, Katuri Vari Street,
Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.,
Andhra Pradesh-520004.
.....Respondents
(By Advocates: Mr. P. Narayana Rao, Sr. PC for CG)
-----
Page 1 of 3
OA/536/2024
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) By this OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
".......to declare that the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the representations dated 30.04.2024 and 05.05.2024, submitted by the Applicant, in accordance with law and the instructions issued by the Govt. of India is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and also article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in any suitable post and to pay the applicant the death benefits including gratuity and other service benefits, in equal shares along with other two legal heirs i.e., respondent No. 5 & 6, consequent to the death of her father while in service, which the Applicant is entitled to in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is widowed daughter of deceased Railway servant Sri D. Krishna Murthy and she is seeking share of the pension which is being paid to her mother.
3. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shipra Sengupta V. Mridul Sengupta in 2009(10)SCC 680 and the relevant observation is extracted as under:
"17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In terms of the factual foundation laid in the present case, the deceased died on 18-11-1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened the appellant, his widow became entitled to one-half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same.
18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the Page 2 of 3 OA/536/2024 amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case the amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956."
4. It is to be noted that when employee died, the applicant, who is married daughter was not dependent at that time. It is also to be noted that, as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, legally wedded wife get benefit of retiral benefits as well as pension. In respect of division of the family pension of the retiral benefits, this court is not competent to adjudicate the issue. Hence, the applicant is at liberty to approach appropriate court in a manner known to law seeking the relief.
5. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/al/
Page 3 of 3