Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Radhamony vs Southern Railway on 11 February, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No.180/00128/2024
Tuesday, this the 11th day of February, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Radhamony, Aged 56 yrs, W/o Sudarshan, Praveen Nivas
Angara Parambu, West Yakkara, Pattikkara P. O., Palakkad-678014.
-Applicant
[By Advocates : Mr. N.Satheesh, Ms.Priya Carol, Ms.Anju Dileep,
Ms.Arya M.A.]
Versus
1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of
Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 012
2. The Chief Personal Officer, Southern Railway Park Town
Chennai-600003
3. The General Manager, Southern Railway Park Town
Chennai -600003
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/PGT, Personnel
Department, Divisional Office, Palakkad Division, Palakkad 678002
5. Vinita, D/o.Sasidharan (late), Vinod Bhavan, Kutting
Cherunniyoor P. O., Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram-695142
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.Mini R Menon ACGSC for R1 to R4]
The application having been heard on 04.02.2025, the Tribunal on
11.02.2025 delivered the following:
2025.02.11
DEEPA S
15:58:31+05'30'
O.A.No.128/2024 2
ORDER
Applicant is the mother of late Praveen, who was a Safaiwala in Palakkad Division of the Southern Railway, who died of Covid on 07.11.2020. At that time, he was married to the 5 th respondent, Vinita. According to the applicant, after about one month of the death of her son, 5th respondent left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents in her paternal home at Varkala. Subsequently, 5 th respondent was married to one Anoop, a professional carpenter. The 5 th respondent is well-off and has independent source of income. Thus after the second marriage, her right to receive family pension was ceased. The applicant represented before the official respondents that right of the 5 th respondent to receive family pension has been ceased and the same may be transferred her as the dependent mother. The 5 th respondent did not respond the cells for transferring the right. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act at Palakkad seeking to assign the family pension of her son in her favour. But the Maintenance Tribunal issued a direction to the Railway authorities to consider grant of 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 3 family pension to the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant made representation but that has not been considered and ultimately, by Annexure-A6 order dated 30.11.2023, her request for granting family pension of her son has been rejected, against the same, she has approached this Tribunal for granting a declaration that the 5 th respondent having income exceeding minimum prescribed family pension in the Central Government is ineligible to receive family pension, to call for the records leading to Annexure-A6 and quash the same, to declare that the applicant who is unemployed and dependent mother is eligible for family pension after the childless remarried widow ceased to be eligible to receive the family pension.
2. According to the applicant, as per the extant instructions and guidelines as seen from Annexure-A7, since the issueless widow has remarried and has sufficient income, income exceeding the family pension payable to her, the mother who was dependent on the son is entitled to get family pension. She has been illegally denied the benefit so that the Annexure-A6 cannot stand scrutiny.
3. The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant. They 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 4 have agreed that Praveen had died due to Covid and the applicant is a category-II pensioner as per Annexure-A7 and other relevant instructions. After the death of Praveen, family pension was sanctioned to the 5 th respondent, the widow. Later, the applicant had informed them that the 5th respondent has remarried. Accordingly, the family pension was withheld from February 2023. Thereafter, an enquiry was done by the Welfare Inspector and it was confirmed that the 5 th respondent has entered into a second marriage and the marriage certificate was obtained. Referring to Annexures-R1 and R2 they say that, ordinarily, parents may be entitled to get family pension in exclusion of the widow, if the independent income of the widow from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than that prescribed for dependency criterion under the Rules. They have also relied on Annexures-R1 to R6 and said that the applicant is not entitled to get any relief.
4. I heard Smt. Priya Carol, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Mini R Menon, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.
5. It is not disputed that the applicant is the mother of Praveen, 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 5 who was a Safaiwala in the Palakkad Division of the Southern Railway. He was appointed as such on 23.12.2016 and had passed away on 07.11.2020 due to Covid. The 5 th respondent is the widow of Praveen. After the death of Praveen, as provided under the Rules and guidelines, widow was granted pension. On information furnished by the applicant the respondents came to understand that the 5 th respondent entered into a second marriage, so that, from February 2023 onwards her family pension was stopped and an enquiry report was obtained from the Welfare Inspector to confirm that the 5th respondent had married again. On that basis, the family pension was stopped and she was directed to produce income certificate and a certificate from the doctor to prove that Praveen had died issueless, but she did not respond to the same and therefore, payment of family pension has not been resumed. However, the claim of the applicant has been rejected through Annexure-A6 since she did not prove her income or the fact that she was wholly depending on her son at the time of his death. Similarly, the applicant did not disclose that her husband is a State service pensioner and he has a monthly pension of Rs.7500/- and dearness allowance; that was not 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 6 disclosed before the Tribunal also. Therefore the applicant is not entitled to get any relief.
6. There is no dispute on the bare facts of the case. Praveen is the son of the applicant. He had died on 07.11.2020, in harness, while working as Safaiwala in Palakkad Division of the Southern Railway. At that time, the 5th respondent was married to her son and thus in normal course the family pension was sanctioned to the 5th respondent.
7. It is also not disputed that the 5th respondent has married again on 12.02.2023 at Sivagiri Sarada Math, Varkala. She belongs to Varkala. It is stated that she was married by one Anoop, a carpenter by profession. According to the applicant, the 5 th respondent also has business of her own and that she has her own income, which exceeds the monthly pension payable to her. On the basis of the information furnished by the applicant the family pension sanctioned to the 5 th respondent was stopped from February 2023 and then communications were issued to her seeking details of her income etc., but she did not respond.
8. The applicant has relied on Annexure-A7 document, which is a 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 7 communication issued by the Ministry of Railways touching the implementation of the Government decision on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission touching revision of provisions regulating pension/gratuity/commutation of pension, family pension and disability pension. In this connection, Annexures-R2 and R3 are also very relevant for our purpose. These are public documents.
9. It is also very clear from Annexure-R1 that Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare had issued an Office Memorandum making it clear that parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, if the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child.
10. Annexure-A7 clearly indicates that for the purpose of grant of family pension, family is categorised into two. One is category-I, who are widow or widower upto the death or remarriage, whichever is earlier. That is included in category-I(a). Category-I(b) is not relevant for our purpose. Similarly, category-II(c) also is not relevant because it is the admitted position that Praveen had died issueless leaving behind parents 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 8 and the widow, the 5th respondent. Category-II(d) reads thus:
"(d) Parents who were wholly dependent on the Railway servant when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child. Family pension to dependent parents and unmarried/divorced/ widowed daughter will continue till the date of death. Family pension to unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters in Category-II and dependent parents shall be payable only after the other eligible family members in Category-I have ceased to be eligible to receive family pension and there is no disabled child to receive the family pension............"
Paragraph 8.6 of Annexure-A7 reads thus:
"8.6 The childless widow of a deceased Railway servant shall continue to be paid family pension even after her remarriage subject to the condition that the family pension shall cease once her independent income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension in the Central Government. The family pensioner in such cases would be required to give a declaration regarding her income from other sources to the pension disbursing authority every six months."
11. This has been reiterated in Annexures-R2, R3 etc.
12. In other words, broadly there are two categories of family 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 9 pensioners, one is the widow and second are the parents, who were wholly dependent on the deceased. The provisions quoted from Annexure-A7 indicate that persons in category-I exclude persons in category-II. In other words, if the widow is eligible to get family pension and is drawing family pension, parents do not have any right to claim pension. But there is a circumstance in which the parents exclude the widow, if the widow is remarried, childless, and has her own independent income from all other sources, which is equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension in the Central Government. In that case, the family pensioner, that is the widow, would be required to give a declaration regarding her income from other sources to the pension disbursing authority every six months.
13. Here, as indicated earlier, when the 5 th respondent was remarried by one Anoop, who is a carpenter, the matter had come to the notice of the official respondents and the official respondents got the matter enquired into and realised that the 5 th respondent had remarried; then her pension was stopped and they sent communications to her to give details of her income for ascertaining whether her income is less 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 10 than the family pension, but so far she did not respond.
14. It has also come out that after the remarriage and stopping of pension to the 5th respondent the applicant had moved the Maintenance Tribunal, Palakkad seeking some directions, but obviously the Maintenance Tribunal has no role in the matter. Even though the Tribunal had passed order directing the Railways to consider her application for pension, that had no effect. Thereafter, the applicant moved the officials and after rejecting the plea, approached this Tribunal seeking the reliefs, challenging the correctness of Annexure-A6.
15. That means, it has come out that after the death of Praveen, family pension was sanctioned to his widow, the 5th respondent. While so, widow remarried and therefore, ordinarily, she will continue to get family pension, unless it is made out that her other sources of income do not exceed the family pension payable to her. The respondents made repeated attempts to ascertain that she has no other sources of income. But the 5th respondent did not respond. At that time, the applicant had moved the Senior Citizens Tribunal initially, and then this Tribunal.
16. It is clearly evident that the 5th respondent has backed out 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 11 from the claim for getting continued family pension after her second marriage. After the death of Praveen, she was paid family pension, but she could continue to get that pension, only if it is proved that she does not have other sources of income, that do not exceed the family pension. The fact that she did not respond to Annexures-R3 and R4 communications is a matter of adverse inference.
17. It is here that the claim of the applicant that the 5 th respondent has her own business, which is far beyond the family pension paid etc. is becoming important. Even though the particulars of the business conducted by the 5th respondent is not detailed, the 5th respondent did not take care to respond the queries given by the authorities. Here also, she has chosen to remain ex-parte without turning up responding to the notice sent by the Maintenance Tribunal and also without giving any reply to the allegations. Before this Tribunal also she remains ex-parte. Therefore, we have to assume that she has independent sources of income after the second marriage, which is beyond the family pension payable to her. In that manner, she has proved herself ineligible to get family pension.
2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 12
18. Now the question is, whether the mother is entitled to get family pension in the place of the widow. The widow has backed out and stands excluded from the purview of getting family pension. Then the entitlement of category-II heirs have to be considered. The applicant has stated that she was depending on the son. There are reasons to think that, that may not be fully correct, because her husband is a family pensioner and get a sum of Rs.7500/- as monthly pension. According to the applicant, that is hardly sufficient to meet both ends, because they have availed a loan for constructing a house and nearly Rs.7000/- is required for repaying the loan and what remains is hardly sufficient for their living. Thus they had to depend on the income of the son. Even though details are not made available, as directed by the Tribunal, it has been brought out that the yearly income of the applicant and her husband is only Rs.99,936/-. This is the income of her husband. It has to be thought that since the applicant does not have any independent source of income and the said Praveen was the only son with two other daughters as their children, the contention that she has depending on the son cannot be disbelieved. It has to be thought that the father of Praveen 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 13 has only meager source of income, so that, the applicant, in all probability, must have depended on the income of Praveen for living.
19. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab and others [CWP-20393-2016] and also the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.24971/2006. Both the cases are of identical facts. In the Madras High Court judgment, after evaluating the metamorphosis/transformation of Rules including parents as category-II pensioners in exclusion of the wife, the Court held as follows:
"............Once the dependent parents are made eligible to draw family pension and that the re-married widow ceased to receive the family pension and in the absence of son/daughter or widowed/divorced daughter, the petitioner, being the dependent mother is entitled to receive the family pension in the order as indicated in the Office Memorandum, dated 21.09.1999, subject to the other conditions of income limitation and proof that the mother is wholly dependent on the deceased Government Servant............."
20. After evaluating the materials and the extant guidelines touching the grant of family pension to the parents of the deceased, this 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 14 Tribunal is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to succeed. The rejection of her claim for family pension of Praveen is illegal. It has come out that the 5th respondent has remarried and the Railways had stopped paying her pension from February 2023 onwards. Thereafter, she did not respond to the communications issued by the Railways asking to produce the income proof, she did not produce the same. She has no case that she is entitled to get family pension of her deceased husband. In the circumstances, in exclusion of the widow, the mother is entitled to get family pension.
Therefore, the Original Application is allowed, Annexure-A6 is quashed and there will be a direction to the official respondents to grant the applicant family pension at eligible rates with effect from the date of stopping the family pension of the 5th respondent. No order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 11th February, 2025) JUSTICE K.HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 15 List of Annexures Annexure A1: True copy of the identity cum medical card issued to Shri. Praveen S. by the respondents Annexure A2: True copy of the death certificate of Shri. Praveen S. issued by the Ottapalam Municipality Annexure A3: True copy of the legal heir ship certificate dated 22/10/2021 of Praveen S. issued by Tahsildar Palakkad, with English translations.
Annexure A4: True copy of the marriage certificate of the 5th respondent-issued by the Varkala Municipality Annexure A5: True copy of the Order File No.759/2023-B1MT.
No.20/23(491895/23& 489152) dated 15/03/2023 of the Hon'ble Maintenance Tribunal, Palakkad with English translation Annexure A6: True copy of letter No. J/P.626/AIΡΑ-2023/27 dated 30/11/2023 issued by the 4th respondent to the applicant Annexure A7: True copy of Communication No. F(E)III/2008/PN1/13 dated 15/09/2008 of the 1st respondent Annexure A8: True copy of the income certificate dated 30/01/2025 issued by the Village Officer, Yakkara village showing the Annual Family Income of the applicant's husband Annexure A9: True copy of the income certificate dated 21/01/2025 issued by the Village Officer, Yakkara village showing the Annual Family Income of the applicant 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30' O.A.No.128/2024 16 Annexure A10: True copy of Office Memorandum dated 26/10/2022 Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension Annexure A11: True copy of Office Memorandum dated 26/10/2022 Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension Annexure A12: True copy of judgment dated 25/01/2008 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W. P. No. 24971 of 2006 Annexure R1:- True copy of Railway Board Circular RBE No.128/2011 dated 22.09.2011 Annexure R2:- True copy of Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008 Annexure R3: True copy of Letter No.J/P.626/IX/PS/2020 dated 02.05.2023.
Annexure R4: True copy of Letter No.J/P.626/IX/PS/2020 dated 26.07.2023 Annexure R5: True copy of the representation dated 08.11.2023 Annexure R6: True copy of Personnel Branch Circular PBC No.85/2021 dated 16.06.2021 ************** 2025.02.11 DEEPA S 15:58:31+05'30'