Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Bindumati Gupta vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2024
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00470/2019 Bindumati Gupta Vs U.O.I.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 470 of 2019
Order reserved on: 09.04.2024
Order pronounced on: 07.05.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Smt. Bindumati Gupta, aged about 56 years, widow of late Vishwanath
Gupta, Resident of Village & Post Surajpur, District- Mau, Uttar Pradesh,
presently residing at C/o Shri R.S. Yadav, R/o Lakhpeda Coloney, Near
Ram Sewak Yadav School, Jalal Pur Road, Nawabganj, Barabanki.
...Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Sunil Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Posts, New
Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, U.P., Lucknow.
3. General Manager (Finance), PAO, Sector-D Aliganj, Lucknow.
4. Accounts Officer, Pension Cell O/o General Manager (Finance) PAO,
Sector-D Aliganj, Lucknow.
5. Superintendent of Post Offices, Barabanki Division, Barabanki.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Shailen Verma
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) To quash the order dated 20.05.2019 as contained in Annexure No. 1 and issue a direction to the Respondents to grant Family Pension to the applicant w.e.f., the date of death of her late husband with interest @ 12% Page 1 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00470/2019 Bindumati Gupta Vs U.O.I.
(ii) To issue any other directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's husband, Vishwanath Gupta, working as Postal Assistant under the respondents since 1982 and took voluntary retirement on 23.02.2011. He died on 31.08.2018. The applicant's claim to family pension was denied by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure 1 to the OA) on the ground that her name was not mentioned in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 23.02.2011 issued after her husband retired and that the revised PPO issued on 23.11.2017 mentioned the applicant's name erroneously. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. It is the contention of the applicant that her name was mentioned in the revised PPO dated 23.11.2017 as the wife of Vishwanath Gupta. Further, she was intimated about the amount in the savings bank account of her late husband by respondent 5 vide letter dated 25.09.2019 and the outstanding amount was transferred to the applicant's account. Aggrieved at denial of family pension, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. 4.1 The respondents have stated that one Geeta Devi was the wife of Vishwanath Gupta and that the applicant was not his legal wife at the time of his retirement. It is the name of Geeta Devi that was entered in the service book of Vishwanath Gupta while in pension papers the name of the applicant was mentioned. Later, Vishwanath Gupta submitted application dated 20.04.2011 that Geeta Devi was his first wife and after rupture of relations with him, she married another person, and that he entered into second marriage with the applicant in 1985. 4.2 The respondents decided that the second marriage is not valid till the divorce with the first wife. Accordingly, the Postmaster, Barabanki, issued letter dated 07.06.2011 to Vishwanath Gupta seeking clarification. In response, he submitted an application dated 18.11.2013 along with a notarized affidavit dated 24.02.1986 in support of his divorce with Geeta Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00470/2019 Bindumati Gupta Vs U.O.I. Devi. The respondents held that the second marriage was not valid in terms of rule 54 (13) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as Vishwanath Gupta had stated that he entered into second marriage with the applicant in 1985 and that divorce with first wife took place on 20.04.1986.
4.3 Subsequently, at the time of fixation of Vishwanath Gupta's pay in terms of 7th Central Pay Commission, the name of the applicant was entered in the revised PPO dated 02.12.2017. Vishwanath Gupta passed away on 31.08.2018. When the applicant applied for family pension, it was decided vide letter dated 20.05.2019 that the applicant's name was erroneously mentioned as his wife in the revised PPO. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
5.1 In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant claims that she was the legal wife of late Vishwanath Gupta as mentioned in the Pariwar Register (Annexure 1 to the RA). She had no knowledge that her husband had married earlier. From the date of her marriage with Vishwanath Gupta, they had been living together as husband and wife. In the original PPO, no name was mentioned as wife. In the revised PPO, her name was mentioned as wife. If the respondents had any doubt, they should have resolved it during the lifetime of Vishwanath Gupta, but the respondents made no effort to clarify the position prior to his death. 5.2 It is further claimed by the applicant that her marriage with Vishwanath Gupta took place on 24.05.1986 and not in 1985. In support of this claim, a notary affidavit of Parmawati Devi, sister of late Vishwanath Gupta has been furnished (Annexure 2 to the RA). The applicant herself has submitted a notary affidavit to this effect (Annexure 3 to the RA). It is further stated that during the wedlock they got three children - Manish Gupta, Shweta Gupta and Satya Gupta. It is contended that rule 54 (13) of CCS (Pension) Rules is not applicable as the Page 3 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00470/2019 Bindumati Gupta Vs U.O.I. respondents have failed to submit any proof in relation to marriage of Geeta Devi with Vishwanath Gupta.
6. The respondents have re-iterated their averments in the supplementary affidavit.
7. Heard both the parties.
8.1 As per the respondents, the name of first wife, Geeta Devi, existed in the service book when Vishwanath Gupta retired. The respondents have also stated that in Form-3 (details of family), Vishwanath Gupta mentioned the applicant as his wife and the names of three children. It is noted that though the discrepancy was palpable, the respondents failed to resolve it and issued PPO dated 23.02.2011 in the name of Vishwanath Gupta without mentioning the details of family as required under rule 65 (1) (c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 reproduced below:
"(c) The Accounts Officer shall indicate in the Pension Payment Order, the name of the spouse of the Government servant, if alive, as family pensioner."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2 When Vishwanath Gupta submitted application dated 24.04.2011, stating that Geeta Devi was his first wife and the applicant was his second wife, the respondents raised an objection about the validity of second marriage. When Vishwanath Gupta submitted a notarized affidavit to clarify the position regarding his marriages, the respondents held that the second marriage was not valid in terms of rule 54 (13) of CCS (Pension) Rules. It is noted that Government of India's decision no. 13 below rule 54 states as follows:
(13) Second wife not entitled to the family pension as a legally wedded wife under the Hindu Marriage Act. - The Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare have since clarified that the second wife will not be entitled to family pension as a legally wedded wife.
(emphasis supplied) Page 4 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00470/2019 Bindumati Gupta Vs U.O.I. 8.3 Thereafter, the respondents issued revised PPO dated 23.11.2017 mentioning the applicant as the wife, but withdrew it afterwards for having issued it erroneously.
8.4 In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has furnished notarized affidavit dated 23.10.2021 of Smt Pramawati Devi, sister of late Vishwanath Gupta, stating that divorce of Vishwanath Gupta with the first wife, Geeta Devi, happened in 1984 and that the second marriage with the applicant took place on 24.05.1986. This aspect has not been addressed by the respondents in their supplementary affidavit filed subsequently.
8.5 During the hearing, both parties stated that there no other claimant has approached them in connection with grant of family pension admissible to the family of Vishwanath Gupta.
8.6 The result is that the claimant, with three children from the wedlock, is still waiting to get family pension after the death of her husband in 2018. In this context, it is relevant to quote the following observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs Mangal Singh & Ors (2011) 11 SCC 702:
"To sum up, we state that the concept of pension has been considered by this Court time and again and in a catena of cases it has been observed that the pension is not a charity or bounty nor is it a conditional payment solely dependent on the sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering a long and satisfactory service. It is in the nature of deferred payment for the past services. It is a social security plan consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution rendering social justice to a superannuated Government servant. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied."
(emphasis supplied) 8.7 In the opinion of this Tribunal, grave injustice will be caused to the applicant if the grant of family pension is not settled, keeping in view the material on record, including the notarized affidavits signed by the sister of the deceased employee and the applicant.
Page 5 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00470/2019 Bindumati Gupta Vs U.O.I. 9.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, this OA is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall make payment of family pension to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after obtaining an indemnity bond from the applicant. The arrears of family pension shall be paid with interest at the rate and in the manner as applicable to General Provident Fund (GPF) as provided under rule 62 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. 9.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
9.3 The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) Warij Page 6 of 6