Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N Jagajothi vs M/O Railways on 30 October, 2023
1 OA No.310/00573/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00573/2021
Dated this 30th day of October Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER
N. Jaga Jothi,
W/o late N. Nagappan,
New Colony,
Attupakkam Village & Post,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Vellore District. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s K. Kathiresan
Vs.
1.Union of India
rep by the General Manager,
Southern Railway
Park Town, Chennai.
2.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Personnel Branch, Chennai Division,
Park Town, Chennai.
3.The Senior Divisional Finance Manger,
Southern Railway,
Personnel Branch, Chennai Division,
Park Town, Chennai.
4.Muniyamma,
Arikalapaadi New Colony,
Arakkonam Taluk,
Vellore District. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC for R.1 to 3
Mr.K Balaji for R.4
2 OA No.310/00573/2021
ORDER
(Pronounced by The 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:-
"a) to set aside the order
No.M/P.353/CC/OA416/2014 dated 07.05.2014
passed by the respondent and to direct the 1 to 3
respondents to consider the applicant;s representation dated 08.01.2020 and to issue family pension to the applicant along with arrears of pension;
b) to direct the 1 to 3 respondents to sanction the terminal benefits to the applicant along with admissible interest;
c) to direct the respondents to produce all the records of the case along with their reply for perusal by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
d) Allow the cost of this applicant to the applicant;
e) pass such other orders or relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the applicant and against the respondents"
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The applicant is the legally wedded wife of Late N. Nagappan who worked in the southern Railway and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2005. After superannuation, the applicant was receiving pension and he died on 21.10.2012. After the demise of the applicant's husband the applicant made representations dated 25.08.2012, 26.11.2012 and 3 OA No.310/00573/2021 27.11.2012 requesting for sanction of Family Pension and for settlement of terminal benefits of the applicant's late husband. The applicant was directed by the Railway department to obtain a Court order declaring the applicant as the legally wedded wife of late N. Nagappan. Hence the applicant filed a Suit in O.S.No.44 of 2013 before the District Munsiff Court, Arakkonam. The said Court by an order dated 07.08.2013 declared the applicant and her two sons as legal heirs of the deceased employee.
Subsequently, the respondents based on the orders of the District Munsiff Court granted pension to the applicant but not settled the terminal benefits. Aggrieved by the same the applicant filed an O.A.No.416 of 2014 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant within a reasonable time and pass an order in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks. Subsequently, the respondent by letter dated 07.05.2014 stating that in O.S.No.120 of 2005 N. Muniamma was declared as the legally wedded wife of Late Nagappan. In view of the same the documents submitted by the applicant cannot be relied upon. The applicant was affected by various diseases and hospitalized so the applicant sent a representation to reconsider the grant of Family Pension and other terminal benefits to her. The Respondents have stopped Family Pension to the applicant and granted the same to the 4th respondent. The applicant further submits that she is depending only on the pension amount to run her livelihood. 4 OA No.310/00573/2021 Several representations made by the applicant to the 1st to 3rd respondents have not been answered. Hence, she is constrained to file the present Original Application.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. K. Kathiresan and Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. K. Balaji, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and perused pleadings and the materials on record.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to Rule 75 sub-rule 7(i)(a) of Railway Services(Pension) Rules, 1993 which stipulates that where the Family Pension is payable to more widows than one, the Family Pension shall be paid to the widows in equal share. In the instant case, even though the applicant is the 2nd wife of the deceased employee, as per the said Rules, she is entitled for equal share in the Family Pension. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 are not considering the Service Records of the applicant's husband in which the applicant and her sons were declared as his legal heirs. The learned counsel submitted that as per even in the Penalty Order(R-III page 42) it is stated that the applicant's husband has contracted 2nd marriage with the applicant when his first marriage had not been dissolved by a competent Court of Law. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant is entitled for the relief sought for by her.
5 OA No.310/00573/2021
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 by referring to the reply filed by them stated that no proof or documentary evidence was provided that the applicant is the 2nd wife of the deceased employee Nagappan. He further submitted that the applicant has already filed Suit in O.S.No.46 of 2015 before the District Munsiff Court at Arakkonam to declare the applicant as the legally wedded wife of the deceased railway employee and the Suit is pending and it is in the final stage and hence the present Original Application is in premature stage and prayed for dismissal of the same.
6. By referring to the reply of the 4th respondent, the learned counsel appeared for the 4th respondent urged that in O.S.No.120 of 2005 before the District Munsiff Court Arakkonam, the 4th respondent obtained maintenance in MC No.1 of 1993 and it was decreed in her favour that she is the 1st wife of the deceased railway employee. Even in the imposition of penalty order, the Hon'ble President was pleased to hold that the applicant was not legally wedded wife of late N. Nagappan when the 1st marriage was not legally dissolved. He further contended that all the parties are arrayed as respondents in O.S.No.46 of 2015 filed by the applicant and the same is pending before the respective Court and it is in final stage. Hence the present OA is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed in limine. 6 OA No.310/00573/2021
7. I have heard the submissions made by the respective parties and gone through relevant documents submitted at the time of hearing. It is seen that the applicant has already filed a Suit O.S. NO.46 of 2015 before the District Munsiff Court, Arakkonam to declare her as the only legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. The said Suit is still pending. Having filed such a Suit which is pending before the appropriate court, it is in premature stage for this Tribunal to decide the issue whether the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased railway employee be that as may be even as 2nd wife of the deceased employee. As rightly pointed out by the respondents. it for the applicant to prove herself that whether she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased railway employee then only the Rule 75 sub rule 7 (i) (a) will be applicable.
8. In the above circumstances, without going to the merits of the issue, the Original Application is disposed of that it will be subject to the out come of the result of the O.S.No.46 of 2015 pending before the District Munsiff Court, Arakkonam. No order as to costs.
(M. SWAMINATHAN) MEMBER(J) 30 .10.2023 mas