Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C. Valliammal vs Union Of India on 3 December, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 803 OF 2007 Dated the 3rd December, 2008 CORAM: HON'BLE Dr. K.S.SUGATHAN, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE) C. Valliammal, W/o late P Chenniappan, Pallar Street, Thenmugham, Vellode PO,Perundurai Tk. Erode District. .. Applicant [By Advocate: Mr TC Govindaswamy & Ms Heera ) -Versus 1. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, to Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) New Delhi. 2. General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town PO, Chennai-3. 3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, Palakkad. Respondents [By Advocates: Mr. Thomas Mathew, Nellimoottil And Mr. Varghese John) This application having been heard on 11th November, 2008 the Tribunal delivered the following:- O R D E R
The applicant is the widow of late P.Chenniappan, a railway employee who died in an accident while on duty on 15.8.1984. She is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to grant her the benefit of ex-gratia lump sum compensation and extra ordinary family pension. The applicant has sought the following relief in the OA:
"[a] Declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted Family Pension at the rate of 60% of the basic pay drawn by the applicant's late husband at the time of his death, subject to a minimum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as provided for in Annexure-A3 and direct further to grant the consequential arrears thereof;
[b] Declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted ex-gratia lump sum compensation in terms of Anexure-A2 and direct the respondents to grant the same forthwith;
[c] Direct the respondents to grant the applicant interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the ex-gratia lump sum compensation payable to the applicant in terms of Annexure-A2 with effect from such a date as may be found just and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
[d] Award costs of an incidental to this application;
[e] Pass such other orders or directions as are deemed fit, just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."
[2] It is contended by the applicant that in OA 105 of 2006 this Tribunal has held that persons identically placed like the applicants are entitled to the benefit of enhanced extra-ordinary family pension as per the order dated 3.2.2000 (A/3).
[3] The respondents have resisted the prayers in the OA. In the reply statement filed by them it is contended that the OA is barred by limitation as the order granting the enhanced extra-ordinary family pension was issued way back in the year 2000. It is also contended by the respondents that only employees who are not covered by Workmens compensation Act are entitled to extra ordinary family pension. The applicant is covered by the Workmens compensation Act. They have cited the provisions of the Railway Services (Extra ordinary pension) Rules 1993 to support the aforesaid contention (R/1). It is also provided in the para 1202 of Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol.I 1985 that in cases where the Workmens Compensation Act is not applicable, the compensation shall be granted in the Extra ordinary pension Rules. What has been enhanced in the order dated 3.2.2000 is the extra-ordinary family pension. The applicant was paid 1-1/2 times normal pension for the first seven years and normal family pension afterwards. Therefore she is not entitled to the enhanced extra-ordinary family pension envisaged in the order 3.2.2000. As regards ex- gratia lump sum compensation it is applicable only to those cases where the death took place after 1.8.1997. The applicant's husband died in the year 1984.
[4] We heard the learned counsel for the applicant Mr.T.C.G.Swamy and the learned counsel for the respondents Shri Varghese John for Thomas Nellimoottil. During the course of the arguments, the counsel for the applicant submitted that he is not pressing the second relief relating to ex-gratia lump sum compensation. Hence the second prayer relating to extra gratia compensation is treated as withdrawn.
[5] The subject matter of this OA is identical to the one that was considered by this Tribunal in OA 105/2006 and connected cases. The Tribunal allowed those OAs in its order dated 11.1.2007. In OA 800 of 2007 also identical prayers have been allowed. We are informed by the counsel for the respondents that the decision of this Tribunal in OA 105/2006 has been challenged in the Hon'ble High Court and there is an order of stay. Taking note of the order of stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court, another identical matter was disposed of by this Tribunal recently on 1.11.2008 (OA 706 of 2007). The OA 706/07 was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the same benefits as are given to the applicants of OA105 of 2006 and connected cases subject to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. As the applicant in this OA is similarly placed as the applicants in the aforesaid OAs, it is considered appropriate to dispose of this OA also with the same directions as in the case of OA 706 of 2007.
[6] As regards the issue of limitation raised by the respondents, in a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2008 2 SCC L&S 765) it has been held that in certain service matters such pay fixation and pension which do not affect third party interests, relief can be granted even if there is long delay. The following extract from the said judgment is relevant:
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of their parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/ limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
[7] For the reasons stated above, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to extend the same benefit of enhanced extraordinary family pension as are given to the applicants in OA 105 of 2006 and connected cases subject to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending WP. No costs.
(Dr.K.S.Sugathan) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Stn