Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Kavita Parmanik vs M/O Defence on 29 April, 2022
1 OA 200/45/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/45/2018
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 29th day of April, 2022
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Kavita Parmanik, D/o Late Shri Sudhansu Bhusan Parmanik, aged about 46
years, R/o New Ram Nagar, In-front of Shanta Mata Mandir, Adhartal, Jabalpur,
District Jabalpur (M.P.) Pin Code 482004 -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri N.K. Tiwari)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rakshan Bhawan,
South Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. The Principal Controller of Account (FYS) AN-V Section, 10-A, S.K. Bose
Road, Kolkata (West Bengal) Pin Code 700001.
3. The PCDA (Pension), Droptighat, Allahabad (U.P.) 211014.
4. The Account Officer (AN), Account Office, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur,
District Jabalpur (M.P.) 482011. -Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Satyendra K. Patel)
ORDER
Through this Original Application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure A-16), whereby her representation for inclusion of name in her parent's PPO has been rejected.
2. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs:
"8(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure A/16) passed by respondent No.2.Page 1 of 5
2 OA 200/45/2018 8(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue directions to the respondents authorities to include the name of the applicant in the P.P.O of her Late father namely Sudhansu Bhusan Pramanik (Annexure A/1) and make the payment of family pension to the applicant being divorcee and dependent daughter of Late Shri Sudhanshu Bhushan Pramanik from the date of the death of the mother of the applicant i.e. 12.12.2016.
8(iii) Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit alongwith compensation for interval period of unemployment, in the interest of justice."
3. From the pleadings, the case of the applicant is that father of the applicant namely Shri Sudhansu Bhusan Pramanik was an employee of the respondent department, who retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1980. After the retirement, the father of the applicant was getting pension and after his death on 16.12.2005, the mother of the applicant was getting the family pension. The applicant submits that her name was not included in the service record as well as in the PPO of her father. The applicant was married on 06.05.2009 and thereafter divorce was taken place vide decree dated 14.07.2011 (Annexure A-6). The applicant again got married on 05.10.2011, but her second marriage was also not successful and finally divorce was taken place vide decree dated 30.04.2016 (Annexure A-7). The applicant further submits that after the decree of divorce on 14.07.2011, she had submitted an application before the respondent department on 01.10.2013 for inclusion of her name in the PPO. But no action was taken by the respondents. After the Page 2 of 5 3 OA 200/45/2018 death of her mother on 12.12.2016, the applicant has submitted affidavits dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure A-9 & Annexure A-10) showing her divorcee and dependent on her parents and claimed for family pension being divorcee and dependent daughter of the employee. However, the request of the applicant has not been acceded to by the respondents.
4. The respondents have filed their reply. In their reply, it has been submitted by the respondents that neither the father of the applicant nor mother made any endorsement of inclusion of her name in the PPO during their lifetime. As per the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure R-
2), the pensioner himself or his/her spouse may intimate the details/names of divorced or widowed or unmarried daughter/parents/dependent disabled siblings to the pension sanctioning authority. However, in the instant case, the applicant has herself submitted an application of inclusion of her name in the PPO of her father, which is not permissible.
5. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents, wherein apart from reiterating the averments made in the Original Application, the applicant has submitted that the Para 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure R-2) clearly states that in cases where the pensioner or his/her spouse has expired, the widowed or divorced or unmarried Page 3 of 5 4 OA 200/45/2018 daughter/parents/dependent disabled sibling can themselves intimate such details to the pension sanctioning authority. The applicant submits that she fulfils all the conditions prescribed in Para 3 of the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2010 and as such, the applicant is entitled for grant of family pension.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is the daughter of the ex-employee, who died in the year 2005. It is also an admitted fact that the family pension was sanctioned in favour of applicant's mother, who had also expired on 12.12.2016. It is also undisputed fact that the applicant was divorced twice firstly in the year 2011 and thereafter on 30.04.2016. The only question for determination is whether the applicant was dependent on her mother during her lifetime.
8. The affidavits (Annexure A-9 and Annexure A-10) have been sworn by the applicant regarding her divorce and dependency on her mother. Learned counsel for the applicant has attracted attention of this Tribunal to Annexure A-7 decree, whereby the divorce under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act had taken place in Civil Suit No.795A of 2015 dated 30.04.2016. Perusal of the decree (Annexure A-7) shows that the address of the applicant in the Page 4 of 5 5 OA 200/45/2018 decree has been shown as 'In front of Shanta Mata Mandir, Amkhera, Adhartal, Jabalpur', which is the same as has been indicated in the death certificate (Annexure A-8) of applicant's mother. So, it is clear that the applicant was residing with her mother and was dependent on her mother during her lifetime. This fact is also clear from the affidavits (Annexure A-9 & A-10) filed by the applicant.
9. In view of the above, this Original Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 (Annexure A-16) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant in view of the observations made hereinabove for grant of family pension, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) Judicial Member am/-
Page 5 of 5