Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Sarojini Jayakar vs Ut Of Puducherry on 5 March, 2026
1 of 19
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/01160 of 2024
DATED THURSDAY, THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
Sarojini Jayakar,
W/o. Late T.S. Jayakar,
No. D3, Sreshta apartments,
473, Kilpauk Garden Road,
Chennai 600010. .....Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. Anna Mathew)
Versus
1. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical
Education and Research (JIPMER).
Represented through its Director,
JIPMER Campus Rd, Gorimedu,
Dhanvantari Nagar,
Pondicherry-605 006;
2. Senior Accounts Officer,
Finance Wing/Pension cell,
Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical
Education and Research (JIPMER),
JIPMER Campus Rd, Gorimedu,
Dhanvantari Nagar,
Pondicherry-605 006;
3. Deputy Director (Administration),
Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate
Medical Education and Research (JIPMER),
JIPMER Campus Rd, Gorimedu,
Dhanvantari Nagar,
Pondicherry-605 006. ...........Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. M.T. Arunan )
CAV ON : 18.02.2026
2 of 19
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) Applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act seeking to set aside the order dated 03.07.2024 issued by the 3 rd respondent and to direct the Respondents to disburse the family pension due on the death of Dr. T.J. Jaisankar, Professor (Sr. Scale) to the applicant with arrears w.e.f. 23.06.2022 along with interest at 12% per annum on pension and the General Provident Fund from the date the payment became due till the date of disbursement as provided under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules,1960.
2. It is stated that applicant is the mother of Late Dr. Jaisankar who had joined the services in respondent No.1 Institute, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) on 04.11.1992. While working as Professor (Senior Scale), applicant's son died in harness on 23.06.2022. Applicant's son was unmarried and her husband had died in 1978. Applicant was the sole surviving legal heir as per the Legal Heir Certificate dated 10/10/2022. Applicant received a letter dated 21/11/2022 (Annexure A-4) from Senior Administrative Officer, JIPMER enclosing forms for claiming death benefits and the applicant submitted the same accordingly.
3. Vide order dated 03/01/2023, Rs.20,00,000/- was sanctioned towards Death 3 of 19 Gratuity and on the same day, AAO issued order to pay Rs. 19,10,109/- towards Gratuity to applicant's bank account after deducting Rs.89,891/- towards overpayment of salary. The earned leave encashment was also disbursed vide sanctioned memo dated 02.02.2023. Except for the payment of Death Gratuity and earned leave encashment, the respondent did not disburse the Provident Fund amount due to her son and the family pension that was due to her. The applicant states that her son was entitled to the benefits of Provident Fund and Pension as per Regulation 41 of JIPMER Regulations, 2008 which provides that those who joined JIPMER prior to 01/01/2002 are entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 and General Provident Fund Rules 1960.
4. Therefore, applicant gave a representation on 23.03.2023 requesting to disburse the Provident Fund and Pension in accordance with rules. As there was no response from the respondents, applicant got legal notice dated 26.10.2023 issued to the respondents. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent sent a letter dated 18.12.2023 stating that as per Rule 50(10)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021, if the Government servant/ pensioner is not survived by the spouse or children then the family pension shall be payable to his/her parent and requested her to submit original legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar and personal identification proofs, bank details, etc., for further processing the final settlement of GPF in respect of her son.
4 of 19
5. Pursuant to the letter dated 18.12.2023, a sum of Rs. 69,00,156/- was credited to her account as final settlement of GPF. However no calculation sheet on PF was provided by the respondents. The applicant is entitled to interest on delayed payment of Provident Fund which was not paid.
6. Further, though the 2nd respondent acknowledged the right of applicant for receiving Family Pension in his letter dated 18.12.2023, the same was not disbursed. Therefore, she made a representation on 27.03.2024 requesting to disburse the Family Pension with arrears and interest on delayed payment of both Provident Fund and Family Pension with effect from the date of death of her son on 23.06.2022.
7. The applicant received a letter dated 03.07.2024 from the 3 rd respondent stating that interest for a period of three months to the tune of Rs.1,14,171/- was paid in excess while calculating the interest on General Provident Fund due on the death of the applicant's son and instructed the applicant to refund the excess interest paid on GPF at the earliest. It was also stated that pending claims will be settled at the earliest.
8. Applicant states that she is 85 years old senior citizen who was completely dependent on her only son and her son was taking due care of her. The action of the 5 of 19 respondents in dragging her from pillar to post to disburse each and every legitimate benefit to her on the death of her son is highly arbitrary and illegal and therefore, she is constrained to file this OA seeking (i) stay of the order dated 03/07/2024 directing to refund three months' interest paid in excess to her; and (ii) for a direction to the respondents to disburse to her family pension along with interest @12% per annum and on GPF from the date payment had become due to her till the date of disbursement, as per rules.
9. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, Mr. M.T Arunan and filed their reply statement contending that under rule 50(10)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 2021, the Family Pension at the specified rate shall be payable to the parents for life, if the parents were dependent on the Government Servant or Pensioner immediately before his death. It is further explained in the said rule that "Parents shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government servant if their combined income is less than the minimum family pension under sub-rule (1) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon" (which is Rs. 9000+ DR/month). Further, under Rule 10(c), "It shall be the duty of parents to furnish a certificate to the Pension Disbursing Authority once in a year that they have not started earning their livelihood and the family pension payable to parents shall be stopped if they start earning their livelihood".
6 of 19
10. It is contended that the applicant's monthly income is Rs.2,22,240/- as per the Annual Income Statement submitted by her and the annual income for the financial year 2023-24 is Rs.26,66,887/- as submitted by the applicant. Therefore, as stated in the rule, if the combined income of parents is less than the minimum family pension (i.e.9,000/month + DR), then they are deemed to be dependent. Since, in this case, applicant's monthly income is higher than the minimum family pension, she cannot be considered as dependent. Accordingly, the family pension cannot be paid to a non-dependent parent.
11. As regards the final settlement of GPF of Dr.T J Jaishankar, the deceased son of the applicant, it is contended that the deceased had nominated the Faculty of the Skin Department/Dean Academic for the GPF amount and therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the GPF amount. However, after long discussion with the Director and Dy. Director and after obtaining the Legal Heir Certificate from the applicant, the GPF amount was settled to a sum of Rs 69,00,156/- as per order dated 09.02.2024 at Annexure-R-4.
12. It is further contended that as per GPF rule, only six-month interest is allowed in case of death of the employee from the date of death which is up to 31-12-2022 only. The Death Certificate was submitted by the applicant along with the original Legal Heir Certificate on 02-02-2024. Due to the delayed submission of the required documents by the applicant, the entire process got delayed and hence the competent 7 of 19 authority is not responsible for the delay.
13. Applicant's son had expired on 23.06.2022 and as per the GPF record, the opening balance on 01/04/2022 was Rs.73,72,171/- and he had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Thus, the entitled sum outstanding was to a tune of Rs.63,72,117/- only. The interest has to be calculated for the whole financial year, but interest has to be paid for balance amount till he survived, i.e, till 23.06.2022.
14. As per Rule 11(4) of the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules, the interest on Provident Fund balance should be paid "up to the end of the month proceeding that in which payment is made or up to the end of six months after the month in which such amount becomes payable, whichever of the periods be less, is payable to whom such amount is to be paid". Thus, interest was payable for a maximum period of six months only i.e., up to 31st December, 2022, but the interest was calculated till the closing of the financial year, i.e., 31" March 2023, as per the following calculation sheet:
Opening Balance on 1st April 2022 Rs.73,72,171/-
Deposits and Refunds Rs. 60,000/-
Interest up to December 2022 Rs. 3,53,814/-
Total Rs. 77, 85, 985/-
Withdrawal/Advance Rs. 10,00,000/-
Grand Total Rs. 67,85,985/-
8 of 19
15. Therefore, a sum of Rs.1,14,171/- was paid in excess which is three months interest amount calculated up to the financial year and the same is to be refunded by applicant and this was intimated to her.
16. The entire process for releasing GPF final settlement got delayed due to non-
availability of proper nomination in the prescribed format, as informed to the applicant, and the terminal benefits were released on submission of Legal Heir Certificate and interest paid as per rules, therefore, OA is liable to be dismissed and prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
17. Applicant has filed rejoinder refuting the contentions taken by the respondents in their reply and submitted that as a mother and sole legal heir of her deceased son, she is entitled to the GPF amount due to her son and assigning nominee other than the legal heir is no bar for the entitlement of legal heir for the terminal benefits of the deceased.
18. After the death of her son on 23.06.2022, immediately on receiving letter dt. 21.11.2022 along with forms from the Senior Administrative Officer, JIPMER, applicant has duly signed and submitted those forms on 14.12.2022 itself. The Death Gratuity had been disbursed to her on 09.01.2023. It was only after a legal notice dt. 26.10.2023 was issued to respondents against non-payment of Provident Fund and 9 of 19 Pension, that for the first time, the letter dt. 18.12.2023 was received from respondent requesting to submit Legal Heir Certificate and other documents to process the final settlement of GPF that was due to her deceased son. As that was the first ever communication from respondents w.r.t. processing of GPF, there was no delay on her part as portrayed by the respondents, and the same is misleading.
19. Reliance placed by the respondents on DoPPW's OM dt.16.01.2017 to deny interest on final payment of GPF beyond six months is not sustainable. The averments of respondents that the legal heir is entitled to only six-months interest on the GPF is wholly false and misconstrued, and that the interest on the GPF was calculated till the closing of the financial year i.e. 31.03.2023 and a sum of Rs. 1,14,171/- was paid in excess and needs to be refunded as the delay is on the part of applicant, etc., is false.
20. While clarifying on timely payment of GPF final payment to the retiring Government Servant, OM dt. 16.01.2017 makes it clear in Para 3 and 4 that in case the GPF balance is not paid on retirement, interest on the GPF balance is required to be paid for the period beyond the date of retirement also.
21. Further, the above clarification is incorporated as a Note under rule 11(4) of the GPF Rules, 1960 and it mandates fixing of responsibility for delay in payment at all 10 of 19 levels against the erring Government servants. The same is applicable to an employee who dies in harness.
22. It is submitted on behalf of applicant that she is not pressing the claim for family pension as her monthly income is more than the minimum pension of Rs.9000/- + DA prescribed under CCS Pension Rules, 2021. However, she is entitled for interest on delayed payment of GPF from the date of the death of her son i.e., 23.06.2022 till the date of disbursement of GPF i.e. 21.02.2024, and since respondents have already paid interest on GPF till 31.03.2023, applicant is entitled to interest for the remaining period till the actual date of payment, i.e. from 01.04.2023 to 21.02.2024, and the same works out to Rs.4,18,627/- (i.e. Rs. 38,057/- per month) and prays for granting the said relief.
23. We have heard the counsels on both sides and perused the record.
24. There is no dispute that applicant is not entitled to family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. It is fairly submitted on behalf of the applicant that she is not pressing for the said relief.
25. The only issue that remains to be decided is whether respondents are liable to pay interest on delayed payment of GPF and if so, to what extent.
11 of 19
26. It is the specific case of the applicant that she is the sole surviving legal heir of her only son, who died on 23.06.2022 in harness. On due execution of all requisite forms, the Death Gratuity due to her son was disbursed to her on 09.01.2023 and Earned Leave encashment was also disbursed to her on 02.02.2023. However, Provident Fund amount due to her son was not disbursed to her till she got a legal notice issued on 26.10.2023. It was only after she sent a legal notice regarding non- payment of GPF amount, then the 2 nd respondent sent the letter dated 18.12.2023 asking her to submit original Legal Heir Certificate, personal identification proofs, bank details, etc., for further processing the final settlement of GPF due her son. The final settlement of GPF amount was conveyed to the applicant only on 09/02/2024. Therefore, applicant claims that she is entitled to interest on delayed payment and as no calculation sheet on Provident Fund was provided to her, she had given a representation on 27/03/2024 requesting to disburse arrears and interest on delayed payment of Provident Fund. It is only on 03/07/2024 that she received a letter from 3rd respondent stating that interest for a period of three months amounting to Rs.1,14,171/- was paid in excess and applicant was directed to refund the same which prompted the applicant to approach this Tribunal. An interim relief of stay was granted by this Tribunal with regard to refund of the amount.
27. It is claimed by the respondents that the deceased son of the applicant had nominated the faculty of the Skin Department / Dean Academic for GPF amount and 12 of 19 hence applicant was not entitled to the GPF amount. After long discussion with Director and Dy. Director and obtaining Legal Heir Certificate from the applicant, the GPF amount was settled to a sum of Rs.69,00,156/- vide order dated 09/02/2024.
28. In this regard, it is observed that the term "Family" is defined in rule 2(c) of the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 and in the case of a male subscriber, it defines the family to mean the wife or wives, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased son's widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber is alive, a paternal grandparent.
29. Further, Rule 5 of the said rules provide for nomination and the relevant provisions are as under: -
"5. Nominations. -
(1) A subscriber shall, at the time of joining the Fund, send to the Accounts Officer through the Head of Office a nomination conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund in the event of his death, before that amount has become payable or having become payable has not been paid:
Provided that where a subscriber is a minor, he shall be required to make the nomination only on his attaining the age of majority:
Provided further that a subscriber who has a family at the time of making the nomination shall make such nomination only in favour of a member or members of his family:
xxxxx "
(emphasis supplied) 13 of 19
30. It is further observed that Rule 33 of the said General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules provides for procedure to be followed on the death of a subscriber, as under: -
"33. Procedure on Death of a Subscriber.- On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made:
(i) When the subscriber leaves a family, -
(a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a member or members of his family subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination;
(b) if no such nomination in favour of a member or members of the family of the subscriber subsists, or if such nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than a member or members of his family, become payable to the members of his family in equal shares.".
31. The rules make it clear that even if any nomination in made favour of any person other than a member, the whole amount is payable to the members of deceased family, in this case, it was payable to the applicant. The respondents should have taken steps in accordance with the rules which was not done.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorakhpur University and others v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others [(2001) 6 SCC 591] has held as under:
14 of 19 "We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very university reported in 1996 (2) ESC 211 (All.) (supra) is that of a Division Bench rendered after considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the decisions of this Court reported in 1994 (6) SCC 589 (supra) which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala vs M. Padmanabhan Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429] and AIR 1981 SC page 212 (Supra). This court has been repeatedly emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest."
33. Further, as regards the status of nominee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bolla Malathi vs B. Suguna in Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2025, in its judgement dated 05/12/2025, has observed as under: -
"8. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx That being the case, even in view of the fact that the deceased had not made changes to the nomination for GPF, the earlier nomination cannot be held to be valid.
9. The position stated by us above is no longer under any manner of doubt. Granted that the nomination was in favour of respondent no.1, however, the condition stipulated in the nomination form rendered such nomination, at the time of death, 15 of 19 void. In other words, the nomination itself would not give respondent no.1 a better claim over the total GPF amount than the appellant. While dealing with a case arising out of Insurance Act, 1938, this Court through E.S. Venkataramiah J. (as his Lordship then was) in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi [(1984) 1 SCC 424], observed:
"12. ... We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of Section 39 of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them." (emphasis supplied).
In Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, this Court after referring to various precedents, dealing with the concept of nominations under different legislations observed as under:
"41. A consistent view appears to have been taken by the courts, while interpreting the related provisions of nomination under different statutes. It is clear from the referred judgments that the nomination so made would not lead to the nominee attaining absolute title over the subject property for which such nomination was made. In other words, the usual mode of succession is not to be impacted by such nomination. The legal heirs therefore have not been excluded by virtue of nomination."
(emphasis supplied) [See also: Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta]"
16 of 19
34. In view of the clear provisions in the rules and the Apex Court decisions as above, there was no valid reason for the respondents to hold back GPF payment due to the applicant. As per rules, the nomination made in favour of Department, i.e., to persons outside the family was not valid and deceased employee's mother was alive, and was entitled to the whole of the GPF amount which was required to be disbursed to her immediately on the death of her son. Moreover, other death benefits had already been disbursed much earlier, there was no reason not to make GPF payment on time. Therefore, we have no doubt that there was delay on the part of respondents in the final settlement of GPF amount.
35. As regards interest payment, the respondents state that under Rule 11(4) of the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules, the interest on provident fund balance should be paid "up to the end of the month proceeding that in which payment is made or up to the end of six months after the month in which such amount becomes payable, whichever of the periods is less, is payable. Therefore, interest was payable for a maximum period of six months only i.e., up to 31 st December, 2022. However, the interest was calculated till the closing of the financial year, i.e., 31st March 2023 and therefore, a sum of Rs.1,14,171/- paid in excess is liable to be refunded by the applicant. However, the counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to Para 3 and 4 of DoPPW's OM dt.16.01.2017 which reads as under: -
17 of 19 "3. As per Rule 11(4) of GPF Rules, in case the GPF balance is not paid on retirement, interest on the GPF balance is required to be paid for the period beyond the date of retirement also.
While interest for the first six months beyond retirement can be allowed by the PAO in the normal course, approval of Head of the accounts office is required for payment of interest beyond six months and that of Controller of Account/ Financial Adviser beyond a period of one year.
4. To ensure timely final payment of GPF, and to avoid unnecessary financial burden on account of interest beyond retirement, it has now been decided that every case, in which payment of interest on General Provident Fund becomes necessary in terms of Rules 11(4) of GPF Rules, 1960, shall be put up for consideration to the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/ Department. In all such cases, the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/ Department will fix responsibility at all levels to take appropriate action against the Government servant or servants who are found responsible for the delay in the payment of General Provident Fund."
36. Thus the above OM clarifies that the interest on the GPF balance is payable for the period beyond the date of retirement also and mentions the competent authority who can allow payment of interest beyond six months and to fix responsibility on persons responsible for such delay in payment of GPF. It is further noticed that what is stated above has been incorporated as a Note under rule 11(4) of the General Provident Fund (CS) Rules as under: -
18 of 19 "NOTE- Payment of interest on the Fund balance beyond a period of 6 months may be authorized by-
(a) the Head of Accounts Office (which expression includes the Pay and Accounts Officer, where there is one) up to a period of one year; and
(b) the immediate superior to the Head of Accounts Office (which expression includes a Controller of Accounts, where there is one or the Financial Adviser to the concerned Administrative Ministry or Department) up to any period;
after he has personally satisfied himself that the delay in payment was occasioned by circumstances beyond the control of the subscriber or the person to whom such payment was to be made, and in every such case the administrative delay involved in the matter shall be fully investigated and action, if any required taken."
37. In view of the above, there is no substance in the claim made by respondents that interest on the GPF balance is payable only for a period upto six months and that interest for a period of three months to the tune of Rs.1,14,171/- paid in excess beyond six months is to be refunded by the applicant. We have no iota of doubt about liability of the respondents to pay interest on delayed payment of GPF beyond six months till actual payment is made by them.
19 of 19
38. It is contended by the applicant that the respondents have already paid interest on GPF till 31.03.2023 and that she is entitled to interest for the remaining period till the actual date of payment, i.e. from 01.04.2023 to 21.02.2024 which works out to Rs.4,18,627/- (i.e. Rs. 38,057/- per month).
39. Accordingly, OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of interest to the applicant on delayed payment of GPF at the rate of interest that was applicable when the GPF payment became due on 23/06/2022, till the date of actual payment, i.e., 21/02/2024, after adjusting the amount of interest, if any, already paid on the delayed amount of GPF, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
05.03.2026
asvs
A.S.V. Sagar Digitally signed by ASAPU
SRINIVASA VIDYASAGAR
P.S., CAT, Date: 2026.03.20 15:25:48
Chennai Bench. +05'30'