Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Anitha vs M/O Railways on 2 February, 2024
1
OA.No.830/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00830/2020
ORDER RESERVED ON 08.12.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 02.02.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
G.Anitha, d/o late Rajaiah
aged about 41 years, Group-C
Occupation House Wife
r/o 12-10-336/17/8/A
Seethaphalmandi
Secunderabad - 500061. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri K.Siva Reddy)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by the General Manager
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, III Floor
Secunderabad - 500 071.
2. The Deputy CSTE (Shops)
Signal & Telecom Workshops
Mettuguda, Secunderabad - 500017.
3. FA & CAO, South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri M.Brahma Reddy, Senior Panel Counsel for Central
Government)
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicant has filed the present OA with a prayer to set aside the proceedings dated 13.08.2019 for non-sanctioning the Secondary Family 2 OA.No.830/2020 Pension and to direct the respondents to sanction the Secondary Family Pension to her w.e.f. 01.04.2016 immediately with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of payment with all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant in this case is the daughter of Sri late Rajaiah who was working in the respondent organization as Technician I Blacksmith. When Sri Rajaiah died on 23.09.1998, as per rules, the respondents have given job to one of his sons on compassionate grounds and have sanctioned family pension to the widow of the deceased employee/mother of the applicant namely Smt.G.Kalavathi who also died on 01.04.2016. The applicant had married one Sri A.Jangaiah on 13.05.1991 but she left him and came to her parents' house in 2012 and since then she is living with her mother. Later she filed a case in MC.No.20/2016 for maintenance on 14.03.2016. She had also filed a case in FC OP No.451/2016 on the file of Family Court, Secunderabad for divorce on the ground that her husband married another lady and the decree of divorce was passed ex-parte on 13.08.2017. It is a fact that she was entirely depending on the pension of her mother since 2012 and her husband has also not denied the same.
3. After the death of her mother, the applicant made an application for sanction of the Secondary Family Pension as she is divorced daughter after obtaining no objection from other family members. The mother of the applicant also executed a registered will dated 30.12.2015 bequeathing all her immovable or movable properties to the applicant. As per Rule 75 of Railway (Services) Pension Rules 1993, the divorced daughter is eligible for Secondary Family Pension. But the 2nd respondent had rejected her case by order dated 13.08.2019 3 OA.No.830/2020 on the ground that the applicant filed the divorce petition after the death of her mother/pensioner as per the instructions issued by the Railway Board in RBE 102/2017. The applicant submits that the said order is arbitrary and contrary to the rules as the respondents ought to have seen that she was residing with the pensioner since 2012 and she is totally depending on her mother/pensioner. It is also a fact that she filed maintenance petition as per Hindu Marriage Act, even before the death of her mother which establishes that the action was initiated against her husband even before the death of her mother. The respondents ought to have considered that the pension is beneficial legislation and it has to be interpreted liberally to the benefit of the employee. The instruction issued in the year 2017 has no application to the case of the applicant as the cause of action arose in the year 2016 and the same cannot be given retrospective effect. The Pension Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the rules did not impose any restriction on the employees who initiated the divorce petition before the death of the pensioner and instructions cannot override the rules. The respondents have not disputed the entitlement of the secondary family pension by the applicant but they rejected her case on the ground that the divorce petition was filed after the death of the pensioner.
4. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA.No.72/2019 in the case of Babita Brahmdev Madan vs. UOI which is similar to the case of the applicant herein, has considered the issue and allowed the OA stating that the divorced daughter was residing with the parents since the date of registration of the customary divorce. In the instant case, the applicant was also admittedly residing with her mother since 2012 and also filed maintenance case against her 4 OA.No.830/2020 husband even before the death of her mother/pensioner and decree of divorce was also passed on the ground that she left the company of her husband in the year 2012. The said fact was not considered by the respondents while passing the rejection order. The instructions are hyper technical. The respondents have to see the fact whether the decree for divorce is passed and to verify the fact of dependence of the applicant is on the pensioner. In a similar case in OA.No.887/2019, this Tribunal vide order dated 09.01.2020 following the law laid down by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal, had allowed the prayer of the applicant therein and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter.
5. On notice, the respondents have filed reply statement wherein they submit that the applicant's father Sri G.Rajaiah while working as Technician Gr.I was expired on 23.09.1998 leaving behind the family members consisting of his wife, six sons and three daughters wherein three daughters were declared to have married and living with their husbands. Accordingly, the widow of the deceased Railway servant was sanctioned with family pension and as requested by her, one of his son was appointed as Helper on compassionate grounds. While so, Smt.G.Anitha(applicant herein), the married daughter submitted an application dated 10.01.2018 i.e. one year nine months after the death of the family pensioner seeking secondary family pension in her favour duly obtaining no objection from other family members on the ground that she filed a petition MC.No.20/2016 in the Family Court and no one is there to look after her since her mother/family pensioner had died. According to Dept. of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare OM dated 19.04.2017 which has been issued by Railway Board vide RBE No.102/2017 regarding eligibility of divorced daughters for 5 OA.No.830/2020 grant of family pension, it was clarified vide para-6 that 'the matter has been examined in this department in consultation with Department of Expenditure and it has been decided to grant family pension to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death, provided the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension under Rule-54 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.' In the instant case, the applicant had filed the maintenance case in MC.No.20/2016 on 14.03.2016 and divorce case in FCOP No.451/2016 on 16.08.2016 i.e. after the death of her mother/family pensioner. According to the above instructions, the applicant is not eligible for family pension in place of her late mother/pensioner as the divorce petition is filed after the death of her late mother. The deciding factor in this case is the date of filing of divorce petition by the applicant. Hence, the applicant's claim could not be considered. The respondents at zonal Railway level have no powers to interpret the rules against the orders given by apex authority i.e. Railway Board.
6. The respondents further submit that as per Bank Pass Book details of the deceased family pensioner(applicant's mother), the nominee was Sri G.Shekar(son) not the applicant in this OA. In the inquiry, it was revealed that Sri G.Shekar was expired on 11.05.2000. Thereafter, the family pensioner did not declare her nominee. It is further observed that the monthly pensions were credited to Family Pensioner's bank account up to December 2016 i.e. beyond the date of death of the family pensioner. This was happened only due to non- 6 OA.No.830/2020 intimation of death of the family pensioner to the bank authorities by the family members. All the family members have suppressed the fact of their mother's death with a malafide intention. However, as per entry in the pass book, it is observed that the total amount was transferred to the Railways. The Railway administration did not know whether the applicant is living with her husband or mother or brothers or sisters. There are no documentary proofs that she was fully dependent on her mother and living with her mother since 2012. Any claims in monetary terms shall be examined and extended to the claimants as per the law as decided by the Railway administration as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already described the public money as tax payer's money in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2012 AIR SCW 4742 (2012) 8 SCC 417 decided on 17.08.2012. The case referred to by the applicant in OA.No.72/2019 filed before the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal is not relevant to the present case as in that case the applicant therein had filed her customary divorce petition in 2005 i.e. in the life time of her parents and her name was also included in PPO in the year 2008 which was a basic document to prove that she was living with her parents and her father and mother were expired in 2012 and 2016 respectively. Whereas in the present case, the applicant had filed maintenance and divorce petitions in 2016 i.e. after the death of the family pensioner and hence, the case relied upon by the applicant is not relevant to the case in hand. Another case in OA.No.887/2019 relied upon by the applicant is also not relevant to the present OA. 7 OA.No.830/2020
7. Heard Sri K.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.Brahma Reddy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.
8. The contention of the applicant is that she should be given Secondary Family Pension because she started living with her deceased mother much before the death of her mother and she had also filed maintenance case against her husband before the death of her mother. As per the rules of the Railway Board, the divorced daughters above the age of 25 years are entitled for family pension provided the divorce proceedings have been filed in a competent Court during the life time of the employee/pensioner. Filing of maintenance petition on 14.03.2016 i.e. before the death of her mother, for which the applicant has not produced any supporting documents, is not sufficient ground to claim the benefit of secondary family pension in the absence of proper divorce decree which was granted in 2017. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, it will be very difficult to agree with the contentions of the applicant. The respondents are right in rejecting the grant of secondary family pension as the divorce petition was filed on 16.08.2016 i.e. after the death of the family pensioner/mother of the applicant Smt.G.Kalavathi who died on 01.04.2016. The reason for rejection of petition is that even the applicant has filed application for secondary family pension on 10.01.2018 i.e. after a gap of two years from the date of her mother's death. If the applicant was really dependent on her mother and was living with her before her death, the mother should have mentioned the applicant as the nomine but the fact is that she nominated her son. The cases referred to by the applicant viz. OA.No.72/2019 & 8 OA.No.830/2020 OA.No.887/2019, as contended by the respondents, are also not applicable to the present case. Hence, the prayer of the applicant is not acceptable in toto. Therefore, the OA is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
9. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /ps/