Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Vasanthi K P vs Defence on 22 June, 2023
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00353/2022
Thursday, this the 22nd day of June, 2023
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member
Vasanthi K.P., aged 46 years,
D/o late K. Damodaran
(Cook, Defense Security Corps Centre,
Burnacherry Post, Kannur),
Koovappattil House,
Kalladathur P.O., Kumaranellur,
Palakkad,
Kerala-679 552. - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. V.K. Sathyanathan & Mr. Vinod K.C.)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Accounts Officer (Pension),
G1 (Civil Section),
Office of the PCDA(P), Draupadi Ghat,
Allahabad, UP-211 014.
3. The Commandant,
Defence Security Corps Centre,
Burnacherry Post,
Kannur,
Kerala-670 013. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. V.N. Mohanadasan, ACGSC)
This Original Application having been heard on 19th May 2023, the
Tribunal on 22.06.2023 delivered the following:
OA No.180/00353/2022
2
ORDER
The applicant claims that she is the daughter of K. Damodaran, retired cook in the office of the Defence Security Corps Centre, Kannur, under the 3rd respondent. The said Damodaran had retired from service on 31.12.1992 and passed away on 26.04.1996. Then family pension was granted to Thanka K.P., wife of Damodaran. Her mother passed away on 29.11.2017. According to the applicant, in the wedlock between Damodaran and Thanka, five children were born namely (i) Balasubramanian (ii) Seetha Padmini (iii) Sobha
(iv) Sethumadhavan and (v) Vasanthi, the applicant. Applicant is un-married and was dependent on her parents. Unmarried daughter who does not have independent income is entitled to get family pension on the demise of the parents. Though the applicant had moved representation for getting family pension, that was rejected. Therefore, she has approached this Tribunal for direction to the respondents to sanction her family pension with effect from 30.11.2017 and to award exemplary cost.
2. According to the applicant, in response to her representation, the 3rd respondent intimated that the service documents of Damodaran contained the names of his wife and two children by name Sethumadhavan and Latha only, where the name of the applicant is not shown. But according to the applicant, Latha is her nick name. Non-mentioning of names of the elder brother and sisters is not known. It is also submitted that Damodaran was an illiterate person, he might have signed the documents prepared by the OA No.180/00353/2022 3 clerical staff. Repeated representations were considered by the respondents. They had called for additional documents from the applicant. She had produced one and the same certificate to show that Latha and Vasanthi are one and the same person. Similarly, the legal heirship certificate, affidavit of Sethumadhavan her elder brother were also furnished as demanded by the respondents. Later they asked her to produce the CGHS card. But such CGHS card was not available with her and she had informed the same to the respondents. Still her representation has not been considered and aggrieved by the same she has moved this OA with the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The respondents filed reply disputing the contentions of the applicant. The representation submitted by the applicant dated 24.01.2018 for getting family pension was rejected. Again, an application was filed and subsequently documents were called for. But the applicant could not convince the respondents that the said Latha and Vasanthi are one and the same person. Moreover, the service records of Damodaran indicate that he had his wife and two children, Sethumadhavan and Latha. There is no convincing material to say that Latha and the applicant are one and the same person. The report given by the District Police Chief regarding the genuineness of her identity is also not convincing. According to the respondents, the service records given by Damodaran indicates that the said Latha was 14 years old at the time of retirement on 31.12.1992. In that case, the date of birth of Latha is 01.12.1978 whereas the applicant claims her date of birth as 13.03.1976, which do not tally. So, the genuineness of the claim OA No.180/00353/2022 4 is doubtful and that was why the application for family pension was not allowed. According to the respondents the application is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, Latha is the nickname of the applicant. It is evident from the 'one and same' certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The District Police Chief also gave a report and still the respondents are not convinced. At last, they demanded her to produce the CGHS card. But such a card is not available with the applicant. She produced all other documents like Aadhar, PAN card, heirship certificate, school certificate, affidavit of her brother. But still the respondents are not in a mood to consider the application and issue favuorable orders and that made the applicant to approach the Tribunal. Therefore, he seeks a direction to grant her family pension with effect from 30.11.2017.
5. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the genuineness of the identity is very doubtful. It is not proved that Latha and Vasanthi are the very same person. The service records of Damodaran does not indicate that he had a daughter by the name Vasanthi. On the other hand, the name of the daughter is Latha, the age certificate produced by the applicant and the age shown in the service certificate cannot tally. In the circumstances the genuineness of the claim is doubtful and the respondents are justified in rejecting her plea for 2nd family pension.
6. It is admitted that the said Damodaran was a part-time cook under the OA No.180/00353/2022 5 3rd Respondent who had commenced service on 11.10.1975 and retired voluntarily on 31.12.1992. He passed away on 26.04.1996. Thereafter, family pension was sanctioned to his wife Thanga K.P.. The said Thanga also passed away on 29.11.2017 and thereafter on 24.01.2018 the applicant approached the respondents seeking 2nd family pension on the ground that she was dependent on her parents, she remains un-married without any source of income. But that was rejected on the consideration that service records of Damodaran do not contain the name of the applicant as his daughter. The applicant persisted the request and moved to respondents again and then documents were called for; all the available records, including the affidavit of the brother, heirship certificate, dependency certificate, non- marriage certificate, copy of Aadhar card, copy of school admission register etc. were furnished. She also furnished certificate from the Tahsildar showing that Latha and Vasanthi, applicant, are one and the same person. But without being convinced the respondents demanded the applicant to produce the CGHS card. Such a card was not available with her. She intimated that fact and still the respondents stuck to the earlier stand that there is no material to show that the applicant is the daughter of Damodaran and that there was no such person in the service records given by Damodaran; it was also maintained that age of Latha shown in the service records and the age proved through the school register produced by the applicant do not tally and thus the respondents are not inclined to grant her family pension and that prompted her to approach this Tribunal.
7. Apparently it is the admitted position that family pension is allowable OA No.180/00353/2022 6 to unmarried /widowed/ divorced daughter during her life time or till she is married or until she starts earning her livelihood. The applicant had approached the respondents in such a contingency claiming that she is the unmarried daughter of Damodaran and that she has no means of livilihood and that on the death of her mother Thanga, she is entitled to get family pension.
8. The most vital question to be answered for resolving the controversy is whether the applicant Vasanthi is the daughter of Damodaran, who was a service pensioner. Evidently service records furnished by Damodaran indicates that he had given names of family members, as on 31.12.1992 as Thankamma -46 years- wife, Sethumadhavan- 22 years -son and Latha- 14 years- daughter. Such details were furnished in form No.3 as per Rules 54(12) of CCS Pension Rules, at the time of retirement. It is in typed form, filled in English and signed by Damodaran. It is the specific case of the applicant that Damodaran was an illiterate person. The signature of Damodaran in Annexure A11(3) bears testimony to the educational standards of the person. It is prepared in English and in all probability, it must have been prepared by some staff member, may be as related by the service pensioner. It might not have been prepared based on any record. Whatever it may be, it is evident from Annexure A-4 legal heirship certificate that Thanga had left behind five children- Balasubramanian 54 years, Seetha Padmini 56 years, Sobha 52 years, Sethumadhavan 50 and Vasanthi 42 years. It is pertinent to say that the name of Vasanthi does not figure in Annexure A 11(3) service details furnished by Damodaran in the office. The applicant asserts that the said OA No.180/00353/2022 7 Latha shown in Annexure A-11(3) is herself, her pet name is Latha, that she has produced 'one and the same' certificate from the revenue authority and therefore basing on the same she is entitled to get family pension. But the respondents are not inclined to accept the 'one and same' certificate issued by the Tahsildar. In this connection Annexure A12(9) document, extract of admission register produced by the applicant and placed before the respondents indicate that she is the daughter Damodaran K and Thangam. She was born on 10.03.1976. It is the extract of admission register issued by the Headmistress, Gokhale Govt. High School, Kalladathur, Palakkad District. She has also produced Annexure A12(10) copy of Aadhar card which also shows that she is the daughter of Damodaran and she was born on 10.03.1976. In fact, A12(9) document takes the case of the applicant a long way which proves that she is the daughter of Damodaran. Legal heirship certificate, Annexure A-4 has to be read along with Annexure A12(9). This document also indicates that on 19.09.18 Vasanthi is shown as the 5th child of Thanga K.P.. At that time she was 42 years old.
9. Secondly, the 'one and the same' person certificate issued by the Tahsildar suggests that Latha and Vasanthi are one and the same person. According to the applicant Latha is her pet-name. In all probability, the revenue authority must have issued such a certificate after making local inquiries in the matter. Legal presumptions available in favour of such official records are not rebutted through valid reasons.
10. Thirdly, added to this, at the final leg of the proceedings the 3rd respondent had sought report from the Police authorities and in Annexure OA No.180/00353/2022 8 R-10, the District Police Chief, Palakkad has reported that the applicant is the daughter of K. Damodaran, that her nick name is Latha. He has also endorsed the 'one and same' certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pattambi. It is certain that Annexure A-11 certificate has been issued after making necessary inquiries, which is evident from the documents attached therewith. To top it all, in Annexure R-9 communication the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent to offer his comments on the report furnished by the civil authority. That was how Annexure R-11 was obtained. In Annexure R-11, as indicated earlier, the District Police Chief has endorsed the claim of the applicant. Pursuant to the same, while forwarding the report of District Police Chief, the 3rd respondent Lt. Col. who is the OIC has reported that the case of the applicant 'is genuine and merits consideration for grant of 2nd life award of pension'. But all these reports have been thrown overboard by the 2nd respondent holding that the genuineness of the identity is doubtful and thus rejected the claim.
11. After considering the rival contentions and materials and after hearing counsel on both sides, I feel that the pedantic and highly technical stand taken by the respondents cannot be approved in right earnest. I have already indicated that there are positive materials to infer that the said Latha mentioned in the service records and the applicant are one and the same person. The Tahsildar, Pattambi had already issued 'one and the same' certificate. After making local inquiries the District Police Chief has also reported that she is the same person. The 3rd respondent has also endorsed this view. Despite this the 2nd respondent, without any justifiable reason has OA No.180/00353/2022 9 rejected the claim and stuck to the stand that the identity of the applicant cannot be accepted.
12. The said Damodaran was a part-time cook in the establishment of the 3rd Respondent. The applicant has averred that he was an illiterate person. After all he was a part-time cook. Such a person, that too entered service in 1975, might not have acquired basic educational qualifications. That is evident from the signature put in by him. As mentioned earlier, the service records are in English, type written; but he must have furnished the inputs. From Annexure A-4 certificate issued by the Tahsildar, it is clear that his wife Thanga has a daughter by the name Vasanthi. So, in all probability Damodaran, out of his illiteracy and insensible character must have furnished the pet-name of his youngest daughter to the authorities at the time of his retirement, for preparing the document.
13. It is also clear that Damodaran had five or six children. According to Annexure A-4 he had five children and their names are shown in the legal heirship certificate. But Annexure R-11 report of the District Police Chief shows that he had one more daughter by the name Bhanumathi, who was married to one Sankar in Tamil Nadu, that Bhanumathi had died during 2010 in Hassan, Karnataka and her death records are not available. I state this once again to highlight the ignorance and illiteracy of Damodaran. Documents indicate that he had atleast six children. But he had not furnished the names of all the children to the authorities, at the time of his retirement. Perhaps, at the time of his retirement Sethumadhavan and the youngest daughter alone were his dependents and thus their names besides the name of his OA No.180/00353/2022 10 wife alone were furnished to the authorities. Moreover, the service records even though bear the signature was prepared by someone else on his behalf. In all probability he must not have been conversant with English language and that document must have been prepared by someone at his instance, which cannot be placed implicit reliance, to reject the plea of the applicant.
14. The respondents have highlighted discrepancy in the age of Latha and the applicant vis-à-vis the service records. In service records the age of Latha is shown as 14 years. So the respondents assume that her date of birth as 01.12.1978. But as a matter of fact, it is a mere hypothesis. Nowhere it is shown that Latha was born on 01.12.1978. On the other hand, the school extract certificate indicates that the date of birth of the applicant is 13.03.1976. There is a difference of two years. In all probability Damodaran an illiterate person must have related the age of the youngest daughter in rough estimation. That cannot be highlighted to say that Latha and Vasanthi are different persons. But there are positive materials to show that Latha and Vasanthi are one and the same person and therefore Vasanthi is the daughter of Damodaran.
15. Annexure R-11 further indicates that Vasanthi remains unmarried, she has poor mental health and she is protected by her siblings. So long she remains unmarried with no source of earning, the respondents have a legal obligation to grant her pension.
16. In my considered opinion, Annexure A12(9) extract of admission register alone is sufficient to resolve the controversy. It is relevant and admissible under Sec.35 of the Evidence Act. That document cannot be OA No.180/00353/2022 11 brushed aside in a light hearted manner. The document upholds the claim that she is the daughter of Damodaran. This important piece of evidence coupled with materials that she remains unmarried, has no source of income etc. provide unbreachable inputs to prove the claim. There are also materials suggesting that she has poor mental health, that she is depending on her siblings for her livelihood.
17. Even otherwise the commendable object of the Pension Rules is to extend benefit to a class of people to tide over the crisis after retirement in service. The State has a duty to give support by way of granting family pension to eligible members of the family of a service pensioner. Here, after the death of the pensioner and the family pensioner since the youngest daughter remains un-married without any source of earning, she is entitled to get 2nd family pension. There are convincing materials to say that she is in poor mental health, she has no ostensible means of earning and is living on the support of her siblings. In the circumstances, the respondents ought not to have taken a technical stand for rejecting her plea for pension.
18. The pension statute is a welfare measure. The State being the model employer should interpret the provisions of the beneficial legislation in a way extending benefit to its employees instead of curtailing it. Here the respondents have taken a highly technical and fussy attitude which cannot be accepted. The materials made available by the applicant and also collected through the revenue authorities and the District Police Chief and also the recommendation made by the 3rd respondent should have been given proper weight. It is unfortunate that the respondents have not OA No.180/00353/2022 12 considered the materials in proper perspective. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to succeed.
19. In the result the OA is allowed. The competent authorities among the respondents are directed to issue orders sanctioning second family pension to the applicant, as per Rules, with effect from 30.11.2017. Orders shall be issued within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. OA is allowed with costs.
(Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2023) Justice K. Haripal Judicial Member va OA No.180/00353/2022 13 List of Annexures Annexure A1- True copy of the letter No.110/Damodaran/A/DSC dated 3.12.1992 by the 3rd respondent Annexure A2- True copy of the death certificate of Damodaran K. Annexure A3- True copy of the death certificate of Thanka K.P. Annexure A4- True copy of the legal heirship certificate issued by the competent revenue authority, the Tahsildar, Pattambi Annexure A5- True copy of the letter No.CA-6/2096/Vol-14/170 dated 21.04.2018 Annexure A6- True copy of the application dated 10.04.2019 by the applicant Annexure A7- True copy of the 2nd respondent vide letter No.110/A/DSC/Pen dated 08.05.2019 Annexure A8- True copy of the letter No.110A/DSC/14305925 dated 26.07.2019 from the 3rd respondent Annexure A9- True copy of the letter dated 22.08.2019 by the applicant Annexure A10-True copy of the letter No.110A/DSC/14305925 dated 21.08.2019 Annexure A11- True copy of the letter No.110 A/DSC/14305925 dated 2.03.2021 along with letter No.G-1/C/CM24352/MISC/19/01-2021/V dated 16.02.2021 Annexure A12- True copy of the letter dated 28.04.2021 by the applicant Annexure A13- True copy of the letter dated dated 110A/DSC/14305925 dated 08.07.2021. Annexure A14- True copy of the letter No.110A/DSC/14305925 dated 26.11.2021 along with letter No.G1/C/FMO10082/MISC/122/8-2021/V dated 01.11.2021 Annexure A15- True copy of the letter dated 19.01.2022 by the applicant Annexure A16- True copy of the letter No.110A/DSC/14305925 dated 29.01.2022.
**** Annexure R1- True copy of letter No.110/A/DSC/Civ/Pen dated 03.02.2018 Annexure R2- True copy of letter No.110/DSC/Civ/Pen dated 15.03.2018 Annexure R3- True copy of letter No.110/DSC/Civ/Pen dated 13.04.2018 Annexure R4- Letter No.CA 6/2096/Vol-14/170 dated 21.04.2018 Annexure R5- True copy of letter No.110/A/DSC/Pen dated 08.03.2019 and letter No.Zo/AAO/Pension/SB/T-1 Annexure R6- True copy of letter No.G-1/C/CM/19053/MISC/607/06-2019/V dated 02.07.2019 Annexure R7- True copy of letter No.110/A/DSC/14305925 dated 21.08.2019 Annexure R8- True copy of Letter No.AAO/Pension/Com/T6 dated 04.11.2019 Annexure R9- True copy of letter G-1/C/CM23157/MISC/120/5-2020/V dated 23.06.2020 Annexure R10- True copy of letter No.110A/DSC/14305925 dated 30.08.2020 Annexure R11- True copy of letter No.594/DR/SB/2020P dated 16.10.2020 Annexure R12- True copy of letter No.110A/DSC/14305925 dated 15.12.2020 Annexure R13- True copy of letter No.G-1/C/Cm24352/Misc/19/010201/V dated 16.02.2021 Annexure R14- True copy of letter No.110/A/DSC/14305925 dated 02.03.2021 Annexure R15- True copy of application dated 28.04.2021 Annexure R16- True copy of letter No.110/A/DSC/14305925 dated 08.07.2021 Annexure R17- A true copy of letter No.G-1/C/FMO10082/Misc/122/8-2021/V dated 01.11.2021 ***** OA No.180/00353/2022