Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Smt. Rekha Aged About 50 Years Widow Of ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 27 February, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Original Application No. 234/2011 This, the 27th day of February, 2012 HONBLE JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER (J) Smt. Rekha aged about 50 years widow of late Sri Sharda Prasad r/o village Sarai Seikh P.O.Chinhat, District, Lucknow Applicant By Advocate:- Sri R.S.Gupta Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, new Delhi. 2. Chief Post Master General, U.P.Circle, Lucknow. 3. Director of Accounts (Postal) U.P.Circle, Aliganj, Lucknow. 4. The Chief Post Master, Lucknow GPO. Respondents. By Advocate: - Sri Pankaj Awasthi for Sri Rajendra Singh (Reserved on 24.2.2012) ORDER
By Honble Shri Justice Alok Kumar Singh, Member (J) This O.A. has been filed for the following reliefs:-
a) That this Honble Tribujal may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 12.7.2010 and 22.2.2011 as contained in Annexure No.A-1 and A-2 and direct the opposite parties not to stop payment of family pension to the applicant as per PPO No. LKO (P) 7531/5 AnnexureNo.3.
b) Direct Opposite Parties to issue show cause notice to the applicant after through investigation of the matter about age of Sri Parmarth Verma and Pinki Verma from school and employment of Sri Parmarth Verma and marriage of Pinki which was not done properly before issue of impugned orders.
c) Any other relief deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.
d) Award cost of this O.A. in favour of the applicant.
2. The case of the applicant in short is that being widow of late Sharda Prasad , she has been getting family pension vide PPO No. LKO (P) 7531/5.Earlier, she was married to late Sharda Prasad after death of his first wife in the year 1991. From first wife, there were three children namely Smt. Radha, daughter , Parmarth Verma , son and Pinki Verma, daughter. The applicant has also two issues with late Sri Sharda Prasad namely Ankus Soni aged about 15 years and Lavkush Soni aged about 12 years. The official respondents No. 3 and 4 in connivance with children from first wife have stopped the payment of family pension since July, 2010 illegally and arbitrarily and have issued order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) and another order dated 22.2.2011 (AnnexureA-2), which have been impugned . It is said that the children from the first wife are not entitled to any family pension. The applicant made a representation dated 4.8.2010 but he did not receive any communication. Hence this O.A.
3. The claim has been contested by saying that late Sharda Prasad was initially married with Shushma who died in January, 1991 leaving behind three children as has been admitted in the O.A. itself. The deceased did not enter the name of his first wife in the service book. It was also not brought to the notice of the respondents from other sources, therefore, the family pension was sanctioned in favour of the applicant. Out of three children from first wife, Km. Radhua , the eldest daughter died after performing marriage. The remaining two children , namely Parmarth Verma, son and Km . Pinki Verma daughter have come forwarded to claim their share of family pension saying that for one year their step mother maintained them but thereafter she has turned them out. The matter was got enquired through Public Relation Inspector, GPO, Lucknow who submitted report that the aforesaid two minor children are living with their grand mother and uncle while the applicant is living with her children in the house built by the deceased. He has also recommended that the partition of family pension is required to be done according to Rule 54 (7 Kha) of the CCS (Pension )Rules, 1964. On account of this , the Chief Post Master, GPO, Lucknow vide his letter asked the applicant to forward the PPO issued in her favour so that the equal distribution of pension amongst the dependents of the deceased may be done in accordance with the Rules.
4. A Rejoinder Reply has been filed reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and saying that both the children of first wife are not entitled to get any part of the pension.
5. A supplementary C.A. has also been filed by the then Chief Post Master, GPO, Lucknow that Pinki Verma is still unmarried and her age is about 20 years. In support of the contention, affidavit given by Pinki Verma , birth certificate issued by Nagar Nigam, duly verified by Public Relation Inspector (O), GPO and a report status of Pinki Verma given by Smt. Sunita Devi, Coordinator, Ward No.11, Chinhat, Lucknow have been annexed as SCR 1 to 4.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.
7. I have gone through the relevant rule 54 (7b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1964 which is as under:-
(b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner.
8. From the above provision, it is seen that whenever a pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive (as in the present case), the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of Govt. servant/ pensioner. In the present case, the applicant herself admitted in para 4.2 that from the first wife, there were three children namely Radha, Parmarth and Pinki. After performance of marriage, Radhia has died, as has been said in the C.A. The remaining two children are unmarried and are about 22 and 24 years of age as said in para 11 of the C.A. which has not been specifically controverted.
9. A specific enquiry has been got conducted by the respondents in respect of daughter Km. Pinki and it was found that she is still unmarried. The relevant documents in support of her age have also been brought on record to substantiate the averment. Now, in view of the above, the partition of family pension is required to be done in accordance with the aforesaid rules and in that connection, the applicant has been asked to submit the PPO vide Annexure A-1 and A-2 which have been impugned in the O.A. In the above facts and circumstances and keeping in view the aforesaid rule, both the impugned orders/ letters appear to have been issued validly and legally because the PPO issued earlier in favour of the applicant by Director of Accounts (P), Lucknow is required to be submitted for doing the needful. But the applicant is not returning the PPO. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the O.A. and therefore, it is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, the official respondents are directed to do the needful in accordance with the aforesaid rule within 2 months from the date the PPO initially issued in favour of the applicant is submitted to them. In case, it is not submitted by the applicant, the respondents would be at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with the law. No order as to costs.
(Justice Alok Kumar Singh) Member (J) HLS/-