Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Shagun Tiwari vs Union Of India on 16 November, 2023
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00253/2021 Shagun Tiwari Vs U.O.I. & Ors
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application no. 253 of 2021
Order Reserved on: 08.11.2023
Order Pronounced on: 16.11.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Shagun Tiwari (Minor Aged about 13 years) D/o Late Sunil Kumar Tiwari
R/o 108, New Ashutosh Nagar, Verma General Store, Krishna Nagar,
Manasnagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-2260203 through her next friend
Swetha Tiwari W/o Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Gram Chingahi, Bhawani
Nagar, Amethi.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Ajit Singh Gaherwar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Baroda
House, Delhi.
2. General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, Delhi.
Page 1 of 5
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00253/2021 Shagun Tiwari Vs U.O.I. & Ors
3. Divisional Railway Manager, DRM Office, Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.
4. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, DRM Office, Northern Railways,
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.
5. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, DRM Office, Northern Railways,
Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001.
6. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari D/o Kashi Prasad Misra W/o Late Sunil Kumar
Tiwari R/o Vill-Haripalpur, PS-Haidergarh, Barabanki.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative This case is about a dispute between the wife and the adopted daughter of the deceased government employee for claiming retirement benefits. 2.1. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant (Shagun Tiwari) was adopted by the government employee (Sunil Kumar) vide deed of registration on 08.06.2012, apparently without the consent of the employee's wife. Much earlier in 1990's some estrangement between the government employee and his wife (Kamlesh Kumari) who is respondent no. 6 in OA appeared to have occurred due to which she applied for and was Page 2 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00253/2021 Shagun Tiwari Vs U.O.I. & Ors granted maintenance under section 125 of the criminal procedure code vide order dated 09.12.1997 in case number 523/96.
2.2. The government employee died in harness on 17.04.2021. The applicant, claiming to be the only survivor, approached the respondents for grant of family pension and post retrial benefits, vide representation dated 26.07.2021. She also applied for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected vide letter dated 26.09.2021 by the respondents. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Heard the learned counsels of both the parties.
4.1 It is the contention of the applicant that having been adopted as the daughter of the deceased government employee, she is entitled to family pension and other retirement benefits. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant cited judgment in Writ No. 10300 of 2017 (Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. & 2 Ors) in support of the applicant's case. 4.2. The wife of deceased government employee, who is respondent no. 6 in this OA, also filed counter affidavit praying for the dismissal of the OA and asserting that she is the legally married wife of the deceased and, as such, she is entitled to get the post-retirement benefits. She also asserted that no consent was obtained from her for the adoption of the applicant and, thus, the applicant cannot be held to be the legally adopted daughter of the deceased, and, therefore, she is not entitled to any relief. Learned Page 3 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00253/2021 Shagun Tiwari Vs U.O.I. & Ors counsel for respondent 6 asserted the aforementioned points during the hearing.
5. The respondents no. 1 to 5 in their counter affidavit have admitted to payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month to the wife of the deceased government employee vide order dated 09.12.1997 of the competent court. The applicant submitted an application dated 15.06.2021 for appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents contend that the adoption deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 08.06.2012 does not appear to be legal as per section 7 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1996 as there is lack of consent of the wife of the deceased to such adoption. As such the application has been turned down and the OA deserves to be dismissed. During the hearing the learned counsel for respondents' no. 1 to 5 argued that this Tribunal is not competent to grant relief in form of certiorari as sought by the applicant. He pointed out that the applicant has sought two reliefs in the same OA (family pension/post retrial benefits and compassionate appointment) which is impermissible. 6.1 Two basic issues arise in this OA. First is the dispute about the legal validity of adoption sans consent of the wife of deceased government employee under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1996. Secondly, the two contesting claimants for the retirement benefits of the deceased government employee present a civil dispute of succession. Both are civil Page 4 of 5 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00253/2021 Shagun Tiwari Vs U.O.I. & Ors disputes to be settled under the relevant laws by a competent court. This Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to decide on these civil disputes. 6.2 Further, a perusal of respondents' letter dated 26.07.2021 reveals that it mentions the names of the wife and the applicant (adopted daughter) as members of the family of the deceased employee. The letter also states that the registration of deed of adoption does not appear to be legally sound for want of consent of the employee's wife in terms of section 7 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1996. Therefore, the matter of appointment of the applicant is closed. It is difficult to find fault with the impugned letter by this Tribunal. The respondents can consider the conflicting claims of the wife and the adopted daughter of the deceased employee only after the civil disputes among them are addressed and settled by a competent court.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no infirmity is found in the reply dated 26.07.2021 of the respondents with regard to the representation of the applicant (Annexure-1 of OA). Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. The applicant and the respondent no. 6 have the liberty to approach the competent court for settlement of the civil disputes. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) Warij Page 5 of 5