Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt. Gulista Bano Aged About 40 Years ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 20 September, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Original Application No. 660/2013
Order reserved on 14.9.2016
Pronounced on 20.9.2016
Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J)
Smt. Gulista Bano aged about 40 years wife of late Mohd. Sharif r/o village Satara, P.S. Kokhraj, P.O. Muratganj , District- Kaushambi (U.P.).
Applicant
By Advocate:- Sri R.K. Shukla
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production and Supply, South Block, New Delhi-11.
2. The Secretary, Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence, Ayudh Bhawan, 10 A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkatta-1.
3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, (Pension), Draupadi Ghat Road. Allahabad,
4. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur-9.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri A.K. Tiwari
ORDER
Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J) This O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act with the following reliefs:-
i) to issue directions to the respondent No. 4 to produce to entire service records including nomination form for pension, gratuity ,G.P.F., Insurance and leave encashment in respect of late Mohd. Sharif T.N. 158/M.S. II, OFC.
ii) to direct the respondent No. 4 to furnish the details of family members to the respondent No. 3 enabling them to declare/notify the name of recipient of family pension.
iii) to direct the respondent No. 4 to pay outstanding dues of pay, pension and other amounts, if any to the applicant being a legal heirs of deceased.
iv) to direct the respondent No. 4 to pay maintenance allowance decreed by the family court , Kaushambi.
v) to direct the respondent No. 4 to decide the applicants representation dated 10.12.2012 in reasoned and speaking manner.
vi) to issue a writ, order or direction in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper.
vii) to award costs of the petition to the applicant
2. The facts emerges from the O.A. are as follows:-
2.1 That the applicants husband late Mohd. Sharif was employed on the post of Laborer(unskilled) in Ordnance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur and ticket No. 158/MS-II, P.NO. 7316 was allotted to him.
2.2 That consequent upon culmination of enquiry proceedings for the offence of unauthorized absence , the applicants husband was compulsory removed from service w.e.f. 23.2.2005 vide respondent No. 4s order No. 522 dated 26.2.2005.
2.3 That accordingly, the respondent No. 3 issued pension payment order No. C/Fys/17097/2007 dated 30.8.2007 fixing his family pension as 1913/- per month but for family pension they wrote the remarks that family pension not notified being Divorced case.
2.4 That in this regard, it is submitted that during the course of his service, the applicants husband had married with Rehana Begum from which he sought divorce under Muslim law Mubarat on 19.12.1997. A divorce deed with mutual agreement was notorised on 19.12.1997.
2.5 That thereafter, during his life time, the deceased late Mohd. Sharif married with the applicant on 26.10.1998 under Muslim Personal Law and the marriage was registered as per rules and customs of Muslim Marriage Act.
2.6 That due to co-habitation of deceased and the applicant, a female child known as Gulsaba Bano took place and now she is reading in class v.
2.7 That due to certain circumstances, the deceased could not file any nomination for pension. Fund and Group insurance scheme etc. and hence the applicant and her female child could not get any share in pension, GPF, Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme for which they are entitled to get after the death of the deceased.
2.8 That however, the applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent No. 4 to get her daughters name as well as the applicant, in official records.
2.9 That after removal (i.e. compulsory retirement) of the deceased, the applicant served legal notice to the respondent No. 4 to make payment of the share of pensionary /retiral dues to the applicant, as per existing rules.
2.10 That thereafter, the relations between the deceased and the applicant became soar and matter reached to the Family Court , Kaushambi for payment of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and ultimately the family court passed orders on 9.3.2007 for payment of Rs. 1500/- as maintenance to the applicant and Rs. 1000/- to her daughter.
2.11 That the deceased could not pay any maintenance allowance to the applicant and her daughter as ordered by the family court, Kaushambi and hence the applicant filed execution case against the husband which could also be not materialized.
2.12 That the deceased expired on 19.8.2012 and a copy of death certificate issued by the competent authority is being filed herewith.
2.13 That after the death of her husband, the applicant and her minor daughter is entitled to get family pension as per existing rules.
2.14 That under the circumstances, the respondent No. 3 and 4 is bound to notify the name of widow i.e. the applicant in pension payment order dated 30.8.2007.
2.15 That the applicant also moved a representation to the respondents dated 10.12.2012. However, the respondents failed to decide the representation and the applicant left no other option except to file this O.A.
3. The respondents filed counter reply through which it is submitted that it is proper to submit certain facts before giving para-wise reply:
3.1 That as a result of disciplinary action late Mohd. Sharif, Labour (US), Ex. T.No. 158/MS-II P. No. 7316 was compulsory retired from service w.e.f. 23.2.2005. Rs. 1913 + DA p.m. were sanctioned by PCDA (Pension) Allahabad as his pension vide PPO dated 30.8.2007. Apart from it, the amount of gratuity i.e. Rs. 54720/- was also granted to late Mohd. Sharif vide PPO dated 30.8.2007. Since during his service period late Mohd. Sharif divorced his wife Smt. Reham Begum, whose name was registered in his service record, no family pension was sanctioned by PCDA (Pension) Allahabad. It is worth mentioning that during the service tenure late Mohd. Sharif never mentioned in service records the name of Smt. Gulista Bano as his wife. Now Smt. Gulista Bano i.e. the applicant has filed the instant Original Application alleging that after divorce with Smt. Rehana Begum late Mohd. Sharif married with her on 26.10.1998. Hence Family pension of late Mohd. Sharif must be granted to her and her minor child.
3.2 The counsel for respondents further submitted that the O.A. is highly belated and in para-wise reply, the respondents denied the facts stated in the O.A. and submitted that after the divorce from his first wife, the deceased employee failed to nominate the applicant as his legal wedded wife and as such, in the absence of any proof, it is not possible for the respondents to issue fresh PPO for payment of family pension.
4. Counsel for applicant filed Rejoinder reply and reiterated the facts as narrated in the O.A.
5. Heard Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents.
6. Counsel for applicant reiterated the facts as stated in the O.A. and submitted that the respondents have not taken any decision on his representation dated 10.12.2012 which was addressed to General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur and even in the counter affidavit, they have not given any reason for denial of family pension.
7. On the contrary, the respondents counsel submitted that applicant has failed to prove that the applicant is legally wedded wife of deceased as the said deceased has not mentioned her name in the nomination form and in the absence of nomination, it is not possible for the respondents to issue family pension to the applicant.
8. From the arguments raised by both the sides, it is evident that the respondents have not taken any decision regarding the payment of family pension to the applicant. The only ground for their inaction is due to absence of nomination of the applicant in the service record of the deceased employee. Mere absence of name of a person in nomination form will not disentitled her to obtain family pension or other retiral dues. The nomination is only meant for the purpose of giving a valid discharge to the respondents from their liability. Mere nomination will not create any right to get benefits. In the present case, the respondents have not denied that the applicant is not legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. However, only ground taken by the respondents to refuse family pension to the applicant is absence of name of the applicant in the nomination form in the service book of the deceased employee. This inaction on the part of the respondents is legally not tenable. A wife is entitled to get family pension after the death of her husband, if she is legally wedded wife of the deceased. Merely omission of her name in the nomination form will be no ground to refuse her retiral dues including the family pension. Thus, the respondents are directed to take a decision in respect of grant of family pension to the applicant, if she is found entitled in accordance with rule provisions and policy of the respondents. The respondents shall complete this exercise for grant of family pension to the applicant within a period of 04 months from the date of this order. However, the respondents are also at liberty to ask the relevant documents from the applicant regarding proof that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased and other relevant facts.
9. With the above observations, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.
( Justice Dinesh Gupta) Member (J) HLS/-
6