Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Smt. Sheela Singh Aged About 40 Years ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 20 December, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal ,Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. Original Application No.74 of 2011 This the 20th day of December, 2013 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) Smt. Sheela Singh aged about 40 years widow of late Dr. Veer Bahadur Singh, resident of House No. 5/141, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. Applicant By Advocate: Sri Dharmendra Awasthi Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi. 2. Counsel of Scientific and Industrial Research, through its Director General, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 3. National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow through its Director. Respondents By Advocate: Sri Pankaj Awasthi for Sri A.K.Chaturvedi (Reserved on 16.12.2013) ORDER
By Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant under section 19 of the AT Act with the following releifs:-
i) issue a order or direction to the O.P. No. 2 and 3 to sanction and pay family pension and all the benefits of the family pension to the petitioner being the widow of deceased Dr. V.B.Singh.
ii) to quash the order dated 6.10.2012 and thereby allow the payment of family pension in favour of the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the second wife of the ex-employee Dr. V.B. Singh who was a permanent employee and posted as Scientist in the office of O.P. No. 3. The applicant claims that after the death of first wife of ex-employee, the applicant got married with the applicant on 22.5.1996 and subsequently, the applicant has also preferred a case No. 433 of 2003 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow u/s 125 Cr.PC and the said dispute was settled by way of compromise by means of a joint compromise application filed by the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that as per the said Joint compromise, the applicant is entitled to Rs. 1500/- per month. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the said joint compromise, Dr. Veer Bahadur Singh (ex-employee) will declare her wife as his nominee for service pension and in the event of his death, the family pension would be paid to the applicant. As such, she claims that she may be given family pension of her ex-husband.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed their reply and through reply, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents that first of all the ex-employee has given a declaration in 1976, wherein the name of the wife is shown as Shakuntala with five children, out of which two are sons and three are daughters. Subsequently, the applicant has again submitted a declaration in 1992 but in that declaration, there is no name of wife is mentioned. Since then, the applicant has not submitted any declaration or has given any nomination form to the respondents. The respondents has also taken us to a letter issued to the Manager, State Bank of India (Pension Section), Main Branch, New Delhi in regard to the payment of pension/ family pension to CSIR employees and as per the said letter dated 6.8.2003, in the coloum , name of wife is shown as No family. As regards the revision of family pension in respect of the applicant is concerned, said letter (Annexure C-5) also shows that Sri V.B. Singh has no surviving members for entitlement of family pension. The learned counsel for respondents has also taken us to a letter issued by the Administrative Officer to the applicant in January, 2010, in which it is indicated that the ex-employee has not given any information in regard to his second marriage. As such, the applicant cannot get the family pension. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has also taken us to Rule 54(12) of the Pension Rules. The learned counsel for respondents has also taken us to a letter written by the Administrative Controller dated 6.12.2010 addressed to Additional Principal Judge, family Court, Lucknow in reference to Criminal Case No. 94(C)/2009 (Smt. Sheela Vs. Veer Bahadur Singh), in which it is categorically mentioned by the respondents authorities that as per the provision of Rule 54(12) of the Pension Rules, the applicant has not given any family declaration and as per the said details, he has mentioned that there is no person entitled for family pension. As such, the applicant cannot get the family pension.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has filed Rejoinder Reply and through Rejoinder reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated. That the husband of the applicant has duly intimated the respondents about the second marriage and the said application was duly received in the office of respondent No. 3 but the opposite party, instead of entering the name of the applicant, now taking a plea that ex-employee has not given any declaration in regard to entitlement of family pension.
5. Learned counsel for respondents has also filed two supple. CAs in which the averments made in the reply are reiterated.
6. Learned counsel for applicant has also filed the reply to the Supple.CAs and through the said reply, it is once again pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the ex-employee has given a nomination for family pension in 1998 wherein the name of the applicant was shown as wife of the ex-employee and the said declaration also finds place that this nomination supersede the nomination made by me earlier on 13.11.1996 which stands cancelled.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. The applicant claims to be second wife of Dr. Veer Bahadur Singh, who was a permanent employee and posted as Scientist with respondent No. 3. Dr.Singh retired on 30th June, 1993 and after his retirement, he married with the applicant and the said marriage continued for some time and subsequently family dispute arose and a case u/s 125 Cr.PC for maintenance is preferred by the applicant against the ex-employee vide case No. 433 of 2003 and by means of a joint compromise filed by the parties, a compromise arrived on 26.11.2005. As per para 4 and 5 of the said joint compromise, the applicant is entitled for Rs. 1500/- per month towards monthly maintenance and as per para 5 of the said compromise, ex-employee is supposed to nominate the name of the applicant for family pension in the event of his death. Subsequently, Dr. V.B. Singh died on 4.7.2009. The three nomination papers are available in record, one is dated 22.9.1976, wherein the name of wife is shown as Shakuntala whereas two sons and three daughters are shown namely, Rajeev Singh and Sanjay Singh as sons and Poonam Singh, Seema Singh and Pratima Singh as daughters. In the subsequent nomination, which is available on record dated 31.8.1992, name of two sons and three daughters are mentioned namely Dr. Rajeev Singh and Sanjay Singh as sons and Dr. Poonam Singh, Seema Singh and Pratima Singh as daughters. The third nomination which is filed by the applicant along with Suple. CA shows the name of the applicant as wife and it is also pointed out in the said nomination that this nomination supersedes the nomination made by him on 13.11.1996 but the said nomination dated 13.11.1996 is not available on record. It is also pointed out that as per Rule 54(12) of the Pension Compilation , the Govt. servant is required to give the details of his family. The said rule reads as under:-
(12) (a) (i) As soon as a Government servant enters Government service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office.
(ii) If the Government servant has no family, he shall furnish the details in Form 3 as soon as he acquires a family.
(b) The Government servant shall communicate to the Head of Office any subsequent change in the size of the family, including the fact of marriage of his female child.
(c) As and when the disability referred to in proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 manifests itself in a child which makes him/her unable to earn his /her living, the fact should be brought to the notice of the Head of Office duly supported by a Medical Certificate from a Medical Officer, not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon. This may be indicated in Form 3 by the Head of Office. As and when the claim for family pension arises, the legal guardian of the child should make an application supported by a fresh medical certificate from a Medical Officer, not below the rank of Civil Surgeon, that the child still suffers from the disability.
(d) (i) The Head of Office shall, on receipt of the said Form 3, get it pasted on the Service Book of the Government servant concerned and acknowledge receipt of the said Form 3 and all further communications received from the Government servant in his behalf.
(ii) The Head of Office on receipt of communication from the Government servant regarding any change in the size of family shall have such a change incorporated in Form 3.
9. The learned counsel for applicant has also taken us to a letter written by the applicant to the Department which provides for that ex-employee had married with Smt. Sheela and her name may be mentioned as nominee but there is no such receipt of the respondents and the required form in which the information is to be given. It is also seen from the record that the respondents wrote a letter to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court dated 6.12.2010 wherein reference of Misc. Criminal case No. 94 C/2009 (Smt. Sheela Vs. Veer Bahadur Singh is mentioned and as per the said letter, it was intimated by the authorities to the aforesaid Additional Principal Judge, Family Court that ex-employee died on 4.7.2009 and at the time of his retirement, he has not given any family details as per rule 54(12) of the Pension Rules and it is also intimated by the respondents authorities that as per family declaration given by him, he has pointed out that he has no family members who is entitled for family pension.
10. Since the family pension can be disbursed only on the basis of declaration as provided under Rule 54(12) of the Pension Rules, in the present O.A., nomination is available on record which show the name of the applicant, as such, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the present O.A.
11. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Navneet Kumar) Member (J) HLS/-