Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai

Smt Mandakini Yashwant Patil vs Central Railway on 18 June, 2024

1 OA No. 718/2022

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.718/2022

Date of Decision: 4 tn Sone, LOWY
CORAM: HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G.SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (J)

Smt. Mandakini Yashwant Patil, widow of late Yashwant
Govind Patil, Ex OS, CPO's Office, Central Railway, Mumbai,
Age: 85 years, Occ: Household, R/at Varsoli, Tal. Alibag, Dist.
Raigad- 402201, Mob. 9823783915, Email _ id-

[email protected] . _.. Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. J. M. Tanpure)

VERSUS

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Central
Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai --
400001.

2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Central Railway,

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai- 400001.
.. Respondents

(By Advocate Mr. P Khosla)

ORDER RESERVED ON: 07" March, 2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: | 3 +
| 3 Tone, 2024



2 OA No. 718/202?

ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. SEWLIKAR, MEMBER (J)

The applicant by this application is seeking declara- tion that she is entitled to family pension under Rule 75 (6) of Railway Service Pension Rules1993.

2. Facts in brief are that applicant's paternal name was Kalavati Kanu Vartak. She married Yashwant Govind Patil in the year 1957 and out of the said wedlock they have three sons and two married daughters. Yashwant Govind Patil was a Railway employee who retired in the year | 1989, After his retirement, the said Yashwant was receiv- ing pension. His pension account was in Bank of Maha- rashtra. The said Yashwant died on 21 June 2017. She further states that since the date of marriage, she had _ been staying with her husband till he Passed away. On 31st October 2017, applicant made an application for getting family pension. The respondents asked her to ob-

tain succession certificate/heirship certificate. Therefore, 3 OA No. 718/2022 she made an application bearing Civil Appeal number 35/2019 in the Court of 3" JT. Civil Judge Junior Division, Raigad at Alibag for getting heirship certificate.

This application was allowed and heirship certificate was | granted in her favor. She submitted this certificate before the respondents for releasing family pension but the re- spondents did not initiate any action for release of family pension. Therefore, the applicant has filed this applica-

tion.

3. Respondents filed their reply. It is their contention that the said Yashwant took voluntary retirement on 31st March 1989. At the time of retirement, the applicant was required to fill claim papers in Booklet- 'A' and 'C'. Book- let 'A' contains the forms for calculation purpose, bank details and Booklet 'C' pertains to family particulars, Nomination/Claimant . While submitting the papers, the deceased Yashwant had specifically mentioned in. the family particulars that this form is "NOT APPLICABLE" and in the form 'A', he had mentioned as " NOTHING" and in 4 OA No. 718/2022 Form No-C, he had mentioned his brothers name Shri Purushottam Govind Patil for receiving gratuity and other retirement benefits after his death. He did not mention the name of the applicant as his nominee. As per Railway Rules, a Railway employee at the time of retirement, if he has a family, has to give a declaration in the prescribed form. The deceased employee had not given any such declaration. The deceased employee had "specifically mentioned that this form is not applicable as he did not have any family to claim any benefit of family pension af- ter his death. They further contend that the applicant should have filed a declaratory suit for the declaration that she is the wife of the deceased Yashwant. They de- nied that anyone from their office had advised the apoli- cant to get succession certificate. They contend that the | applicant has not furnished any proof to show that de- ceased Yashwant was her husband. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the application.

4. . The applicant filed rejoinder contending that the 5 OA No. 718/2022 postal address given by the deceased at the time of re- tirement and the address at which the applicant is resid- ing are one and the same. This clearly goes to show that the applicant had been staying with the deceased since the date of their marriage.

5. The respondents filed reply to rejoinder. However, no new point has been raised. in the reply to rejoinder.

Hence, it needs no consideration.

6. -l| have heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri iM. Tanpure and learned counsel for the respondents, Shri P.. Khosla.

7. . Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri J. M. Tanpure submitted that the applicant had been staying with the deceased since the date of her marriage . The applicant obtained heirship certificate indicating that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Yashwant. He sub- mitted that as per the advice given by the respondents, | the applicant applied for getting the heirship certificate.

She was advised to obtain heirship certificate. According-

6 OA No. 718/2022

ly, competent Civil Court declared applicant to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Despite producing the heirship certificate the respondents have not re- leased the family pension of the applicant. He argued that long standing cohabitation gives rise to the pre- sumption of valid marriage. Since the date of her mar- riage with the deceased Yashwant, applicant has been staying with deceased Yashwant. For this purpose he placed reliance on the case of. Smt. Bababai Alias Laxmibai Baban Gadade versus Union of India & others in OA No. 861/2010, CAT, Mumbai Bench in which it has been held that long-standing cohabitation between a man and a woman gives rise to the presumption of mar- riage. He submitted that long standing cohabitation itself is a proof of the marriage between the applicant and the deceased Yashwant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Khosla submitted that the applicant ought to have a filed a suit for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the 7 OA No.718/2022 deceased. Succession certificate /heirship certificate does not confirm the title of the applicant. Family pension is not a bounty which can be given to any unauthorized person. He submitted that the applicant has not produced any evidence to show that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. Her name was not shown by the deceased in pension papers as his nominee nor he had mentioned name of the applicant as his legally wed- ded wife in any service record. Therefore, the applicant | cannot lay claim over the family pension of the deceased. She has not produced marriage certificate. She has also -- not produced the school leaving certificate of the chil- dren of the applicant to show that they were born from the deceased employee. He submitted that even in ration card, the name of the applicant is not shown. The re- spondents have no record to show that in the ration card, the name of the applicant was entered. This shows that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Yashwant.

8 OA No.718/2022

9. | have a given thoughtful consideration to all the submissions made by the learned counsels for the re-

spective parties.

10. The applicant claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Yashwant. However, she has not produced any evidence to that effect She has not pro- duced marriage certificate nor she has produced school leaving certificate to show her relation with the deceased 7 The only evidence she has is in the form of heirship cer- tificate. Proceedings of heirship certificate are summary in nature. The question of title to the property in ques---

tion is not gone into.

ii. The Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cir- cumstances in the case of State of Chhattisgarh and oth-

ers versus Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600 has held as under:-

"22. A succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee. By reason of grant of such certificate, a per- son in whose favour Succession certificate is granted 9 OA No. 718/2022 becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive any right thereunder. The succes- sion certificate merely enabled him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status was conferred on him thereby. It did not prove any relationship between the deceased and the applicant. Even otherwise, the re- spondent and his father were entitled to the said dues being his heirs and legal representatives."

12. Thus, from these observations, it is clear that a suc- 'cession certificate can be granted in favor of any person. [tt may be granted to an heir or a nominee. By reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose favor succes- sion certificate is granted becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and le- gal representatives. He does not derive any right there- under. The succession certificate merely enables him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status is conferred on him thereby. It does not prove any relationship be- | tween the deceased and the applicant. |

13. In the case of Ganga Ram versus The Chairman , Bi- har State Electricity Board in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 154/2018 (Patna High Court) decided on 18th April, 10 QA No. 718/202? 2023, it has been held as under :-

"23. Thus, family pension is an independent claim and cannot be claimed through a deceased employee. Pen- sion is not a debt, rather now it has been held to be property."

14. It has further been held in this decision of Patna High Court that the proceedings of succession certificate are summary in nature. Pension is not a debt but now it has been held to be property.

15. From this decision of Supreme Court, it is seen that the heirship certificate does not decide the relationship between the parties. ft has not established any relation- ship between the applicant and the deceased. The heir- ship certificate,therefore, does not confer any benefit on the applicant. It does not establish that the deceased Yashwant was the husband of the. applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision of a single bench of this tribunal the case of Smt. Bababai Alias Laxmibai Baban Gadade versus Union of India & others (supra) for the proposition that long co-

11 OA No. 718/2022

habitation leads to presumption of marriage. This deci- sion of this bench of the tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand as facts in that case are totally different. In that case, the lady had produced mar- riage certificate and school leaving certificate of the chil- dren. In the case at hand, nothing is brought on record to 7 show that there was long cohabitation between the ap- plicant and the deceased Yashwant. On the contrary, the evidence in the nature of ration card shows the position otherwise. This ration card shows that the first name is of - the applicant and at serial no. 7 the name of deceased Yashwant was added in the year 2013. The deceased passed away in the year 2017. The applicant claims that the marriage had taken place in the year 1957. Then how the name of the applicant was added in the ration card of the applicant in 2013. This goes to show that if at all. there was cohabitation, that was from the year 2013 | only. Therefore it cannot be said that there was long co-

habitation between the deceased and the applicant.

12 OA No. 718/2022

16. My attention was drawn to the OM dated 26 Octo- ber 2022. Para 6 of this OM states that in case after the death of a Government servant or a pensioner, a mem- ber of the family, whose name is not included in form 4, submits a claim for family pension, the claim of a mem- ber of the family shall not be rejected on the ground that. details of such member of the family are not available in form number 4 or office records, if the Head of Office js otherwise satisfied about the eligibility of the member of | the family for grant of family pension. This OM does not apply to the facts of the case at hand. The respondents -- are not satisfied about the eligibility of the claim of the applicant. At the cost of repetition , | say that there is no evidence to show that the applicant is the wife of the de- ceased employee. Except her words, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had married the de- ceased. In this view of the matter, the claim of the appli- cant cannot be granted. She can approach the competent forum for getting declaration. This Original application is 13 QA No. 718/2022 therefore bereft of any merit. It is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.

nk.

(Justice M.G.Sewlikar) Member (J)