Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma vs Union Of India on 23 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No.4481 of 2011 New Delhi this the 23rd day of December, 2011 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma W/o Late Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma D/o Sh. Ram Pal Sharma, R/o Village Kasoomi, Post, Sohi, Distt. Bulandshehar. .... Applicant ( By Advocate Shri T.D. Yadav for Shri Lalta Prasad ) VERSUS 1. Union of India, Through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Delhi Division, State Entry Road, Near New Delhi Railway Station, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. .. Respondents O R D E R
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
2. By filing this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
(a) To issue direction to the Railway Authorities (DRM N.R. New Delhi) to forward the family pension prayers of the applicant to the Family Pension Sanctionary Authority to arrange her family pension within one month provisionally and pay her arrears of pension within two months of the issue of the Pension Payment orders.
(b) To issue direction to the Railways to make payment of Gratuity Fund etc. as per the nomination.
(c) call the record of the late husband of the applicant.
(d) Pass any such order/further order which deems fit and proper an eye of law kindly please.
3. The applicant has earlier filed OA 1937/2011 for the same very relief which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to procure certain documents from the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereupon if necessary he would file a substantive OA, vide order dated 27.5.2011. The applicant has re-filed the same OA afresh without any additional information obtained by her under Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. When the present Application came up for consideration on 16.12.2011, the applicants counsel was asked to point out as to what additional information has been furnished in the present Application after having obtained the same under the RTI Act in terms of this Tribunals order dated 27.5.2011 passed in OA 1937/2011 above filed by the applicant as referred to above. The applicants counsel stated that there is no such information. As a matter of fact, the information sought by the applicant under RTI Act was not provided. He was unable to state as to why appeal against non-supplying of information has not been preferred by the applicant under RTI Act. And, in the absence of any such additional information how the claim of the applicant in the present Application is maintainable on the same very grounds which was not admitted earlier in OA No.1937/2011. On a query as to why this application be not dismissed on this count or else it be withdrawn to obtain the necessary information, whereupon a proper Application be filed along with requisite documents, Shri Lalta Prasad appearing for the applicant sought time to have necessary instructions from the applicant. At his request the case was adjourned to 21.12.2011.
5. When the case came up for hearing on 21.12.2011, Shri T.D. Yadav, appearing for the applicant referred to the applicants representation dated 20.7.2009, a copy of which is at Annexure A-1. The applicants counsel urged that the present Application can be disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide this representation of the applicant within a fixed time frame.
6. A perusal of the said representation reveals that it has been filed by the applicant apprehending the claim put forth by the second wife of late husband of the applicant for the grant of retiral dues of the deceased employee. It has thus been stated that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma who expired on 15.8.2008 and as such she is entitled to service funds, pension etc. and if the same are demanded by any other woman claiming to be the wife of late Shri Shresh Chand Sharma, it would be illegal and void and requested that such service pension funds to be paid to the applicant and not to anybody else. The applicants counsel has drawn my attention in this regard to the respondents letter dated 18.9.2009 addressed to one Shri Pankaj Kumar S/o late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma from the second wife claiming compassionate appointment upon the death of his father whereby he has been informed that in case two or more wives are claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, benefits of compassionate appointment is to be allowed to the first wife. Since the first wife Smt. Raj Kumari Sharma also applied for appointment on compassionate ground, the case had been put up to the competent authority and the decision on it is awaited. However, besides the issue of eligibility, the case of the family pension stands altogether on different footing.
7. However, a perusal of The Application, it is noted that Rule 75 of the Railway Servants Pension Rules, 1993 contains the family pension scheme for railway servants, 1964. A plain reading of the said Rule reveals that the applicant should either have opted or deemed to have opted for Family Pension Scheme, 1964 and family pension under that Scheme can be granted only if the Railway servant died in service on or after 1.1.1964; retired on or after 1.1.1964; and at the time of death he was in receipt of ordinary pension. On a reading of the Application, it is not clear if all the conditions required to be complied with for the grant of family pension in terms of Rule 75 of the Railway Servants Pension Rules, 1993 are satisfied in the case of the applicant or not. On the other hand, it is seen from the annexures to the Application that the applicant was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry on the complaint of the applicant herein that her husband had married one Smt. Vijay Kumari Sharma while his first wife with whom he had married in 1969 was alive and was awarded penalty of removal from service vide order dated 28.4.1995, a copy of which is at Annexure A/2. As a matter of fact, the applicants claim is that her husband was reinstated in service but could not produce a copy of order of reinstatement. Precisely for this reason, the earlier Original Application was withdrawn. The applicant has applied for this copy vide her letter dated 24.10.2011 addressed to Public Information Officer of the respondents. In the absence of such reinstatement order indicating the applicant was in service at the time of death, the applicant would not be entitled for grant of family pension in terms of Rule 75 of the Rules referred to above.
8. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the applicant has not been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of relief claimed by her in the absence of necessary supporting documents and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (J) /ravi/