Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Saraswathy vs M/O Railways on 7 May, 2024
I OA No.310/00925/2022 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH QA/310/00925/2022 Dated this =" May, Two Thousand Twenty Four CORAM : HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER A. Saraswathy, D/o Late A. Kuppammal, 231, Natham Road, Nambikottai, Athtyanoothu, Dindigul. By Advocate M/s Mani Gopi 1.Union of India rep by its Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, General Manager Office, Chennai Central, Chennai. 2.The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, . Divisional Office, Madurai. By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC .. Applicant Ys. .. Respondents Mp 2 OA No.310/00925/2022 ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) _ The applicant has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
" to call for the records from the respondents impugned order U/P/353/0A937/2021 _-- dated 31.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal and unsustainable in law and to direct the respondents to issue the family pension to her since her mother get expired and pass such further order as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case, are as follows:
The applicant's mother, Smt. A. Kuppammal, worked as a Sanitary Cleaner in Southern Railway, Madurai Division, and was appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband in 1977. After her mother's passing in 2001, the applicant, who had separated from her husband and lived with her mother since 1998, submitted multiple requests to be appointed on compassionate grounds and receive family pension. Despite several representations and legal actions, including filing several Original Applications before this Tribunal, the applicant's requests were denied by the respondents. Since the respondents failed to take any steps, the applicant filed OA No.937/2021 and the same was disposed by this Tribunal on 09.11.2021 with a direction to the respondents to consider the 3 OA No.310/00925/2022 representation dated 16.07.2021 and pass a reasoned speaking order within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have passed the impugned order on 31.01.2022. Aggrieved by the said order the applicant has preferred the present OA.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have failed to consider that the applicant was deserted by her husband in the year 1998 and ever since , she is taking care of her mother till her last breath. It is also his contention that the respondents have also failed to consider the Deed of Dissolution of Marriage dated 11.06.1998 and the divorce granted I HMOP No.610/2009, vide order, dated 1.10.2010.
4, The learned counsel for the applicant also contended that the denial of family pension to the applicant on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Diary No.21982/2017 (SLP A (C)22602/2017) is void ab initio. He also referred to Railway Board Circular RBE102/2017 dated 23.08.2017, wherein it was decided to grant family pension to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce was obtained or at least divorce proceedings has been filed in a competent court during the life-time of the employee/pensioner.
4 OA No.3 10/00925/20225. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the judgment, dated 13.08.2019, of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No.9460 of 2019 is squarely applicable to the facts of the applicant's case and hence, she is entitled to the family pension and prayed for the relief accordingly.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that without disclosing all the facts, the applicant had filed OA No.937/2021 (3 OA) wherein there is no whisper about earlier litigation, seeking direction to consider the applicant's representations dated 16.07.2021. Hence the OA was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order, dated 09.11.2021, with the direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.07.2021 and pass a reasoned and speaking orders, as per law, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order copy.
7. He further submitted that after going through the representation dated 16.07.2021, it is seen that the applicant has claimed that herself and her husband got separated though a deed tiled as 'dissolution of marriage' dated 11.06.1998 and hence being eligible for family pension. He further submitted that as per Railway Board's circular RBE No.102/2017, dated 23.08.2017, it was decided to grant family pension to a divorced daughter.
5 OA No.3 10/00925/2022In such case where the divorce was obtained or at least divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life time of the employee/pensioner. He contended that in the present case the applicant claimed that she obtained divorce through a deed of dissolution of marriage before Panchayat on 11.06.1998 which is not competent for granting divorce. He further submitted that it is evident form the records that applicant and her husband filed a divorce petition in HMOP No.610 in the year 2009 only before the Hon'ble Principal Sub court- Tiruchirappalli, wherein the applicant had submitted that herself and husband both of them were living separately from the year 2005 and the court passed the divorce decree on 01.01.2010 that is after the demise of the applicant's mother A. Kuppammal who expired on 16.02.2001.
8. He further submitted that the direction given by this Tribunal in OA No.201/2018 was that the applicant's case will be subject to the outcome of the SLP Diary No.21982/2017 which was subsequently numbered as SLP (C ) 22602/2017 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme court on 10.03.2021 and nothing survive to freshly consider the applicant's case further. He submitted that this fact was not brought to this Tribunal in OA NO.937/2021. He further submitted that in compliance of the order of this Tribunal in OA.No.937/2021, the applicant has been advised duly narrating the facts and circumstances her case after perusing entire records 6 OA No.3 10/00925/2022 and rule provision thereof that the applicant was not entitled for family pension. Therefore, he pleaded for dismissal of the OA.
9. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions made in the OA.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. N. Murugesan for M/s. Mani Gopi, and the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Su.
Srinivasan, and perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record.
11. J have heard both the parties at length. It is seen from the records that in OA No.201/2018 this Tribunal has passed an order on 23.04.2019 and made the following observations:
"5 Learned counsel for the respondents would, however, vehemently oppose the prayer pointing out that the applicant had not even claimed an appropriate relief in this OA. It is pointed out that there was no order dated 14.08.2017 of the second respondent and the question of quashing the same would not arise. As for Annexure A-2 communication dated 16.12.2014, it is submitted that the same had not been challenged. The widowed/divorced daughter could only be sanctioned family pension, if the divorce or the death of the husband as the case may be, occurred before the death of the employee/pensioner on whom the daughter was dependent. In this case, there is no evidence whatsoever that the applicant was divorced or widowed before 16.02.2001 when her mother died in harness. In the case of divorcee, a provision had been made by OM dated 19.07.2017 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare that a divorced daughter could be sanctioned family pension even in cases where the divorce took place after the death of the employee/pensioner if the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life time of the employee/pensioner, provided all other conditions for grant of family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 were fulfilled. The applicant has not produced any evidence that divorce proceedings had been 7 OA No.3 10/00925/2022 initiated before the expiry of her mother on 16.02.2001. Accordingly, the OA is liable to be dismissed, it is submitted
6. I have considered the matter. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a daughter of deceased ex-Safaiwala Smt. A. Kuppammal who expired on 16.02.2001. On the date of death of the applicant's mother, the applicant was neither divorced nor widowed. The applicant has also not produced any evidence that divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court of jurisdiction before the death of her mother. As such, prima facie it would appear that the applicant has not made out a case.
7. The applicant has sought an order similar in the one passed in OA 30/2019 dated 09.01.2019 in the case of a widowed daughter whose husband had died after the death of the Government employee/pensioner. The SLP (Diary No.21982/2017) filed before the Hon'ble Apex court in which the relevant provision had allegedly been challenged in the Hon'ble Apex court, was also quoted therein. If it is true that the provision that only such widowed/divorced daughters would be eligible for family pension in whose cases the widowhood/divorce occurred before the date of death of the Government employee/pensioner is under challenge in the said SLP, I see no reason why the applicant's case should not be reviewed in the event of the law being settled finally in favour of persons similarly placed as the applicant.
8. In view of the above, this OA is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to make a fresh representation to the competent authority in the event of the law being finally settled in favour of persons similarly placed as the applicant. Upon receipt of any such representation along with supporting documents, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law."
12. It is clear from the records that when OA No.937/2021 was filed by the applicant, she has not bought out the previous litigations filed before this Tribunal on record. In the said OA, the applicant sought only to dispose of her representation dated 16.07.2021. It is pertinent to mention here that this Tribunal passed order in OA No.201/2018, dated 23.04.2018 that if any law being finally settled in favour of person similarly placed as the applicant in SLP (Diary No.21982/2017) and the same may be granted to the applicant.
8 OA No.310/00925/202213. It is now clear that the Hon'ble Apex court in the above SLP (Diary No.21982/2007) converted as SLP (C ) No.22602/2017, dated 10.03.2021 has dismissed the appeal of the similarly placed applicants, therefore nothing survives for adjudication also. It is also clear from the records that the applicant got divorced only in the year 2010 and there was no whisper in the order of the decree of divorce that the applicant got divorced before the Panchayat during the year 1998. Even the divorce decree was obtained by the applicant only after the demise of her mother in the year 2001.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the applicant has miserably failed to make out a case for the grant of family pension claimed by her. In view of the same, the OA is liable to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.