Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Ranno Devi vs General Manager N C Rly on 7 February, 2023
OA No. 698 of 2018
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 07th day of February 2023
Original Application No. 698 of 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Smt. Ranno Devi, a/a 54 years, W/o late Vijay Pal, R/o Village - Maatpur,
Post - Pura Mufti, District Kashambi.
. . .Applicant
By Adv: Shri Rajesh Dutt Pandey
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
3. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri K.K. Ojha
ORDER
Shri Rajesh Dutt Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that after death of first wife, the applicant married with late Vijay Pal. A dispute arose between the deceased employee and the applicant during his life time. Proceedings under Section 125 CRPC was also started which was allowed in favour of the applicant fixing maintenance in her favour. After the death of the applicant's husband, applicant had applied before the department concerned for family pension and for entering her name in the service record, but the department rejected the same vide impugned order mentioning therein that name of the applicant is not entered in service record by the deceased employee.
Page 1 of 5 OA No. 698 of 2018
3. Referring to the aforesaid facts and the document annexed with the OA, it was further argued that issue regarding marriage between the applicant and late Vijay Pal has been settled in the earlier OA filed by the applicant. To substantiate the argument, learned counsel for the applicant refers to the annexure 8 of the OA and further argued that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Vijay Pal, although, she was getting maintenance and was living separately with him during his life time, but after the death of the deceased employee the applicant is entitled for family pension. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.L. Bhatia vs. Union of India reported in 1999 Law Suit (SC) 519.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents refereeing to the annexure No. 1 of the CA argued that the entire retiral dues had been paid to the deceased employee. He was also receiving pension. He has not disclosed the name of his wife in the service record. There was no documentary proof to this extent. Application moved by the applicant was also unsigned. Due to the aforesaid reasons prayer made by the applicant was denied. As there was no evidence regarding the relation of the applicant with the deceased employee. There are two married sons of the deceased employee borne out from the wedlock of the first wife. Thus referring to the entire facts disclosed in the counter affidavit, it was further argued that the applicant is not entitled for family pension on death of deceased employee.
5. I have heard considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire record.
Page 2 of 5 OA No. 698 of 2018
6. In this matter as is evident from the record that deceased employee Vijay Pal has married with one Smt. Suraj Kali, she died during the life time of the deceased employee. Thereafter, he remarried with the applicant in the year 1986. Deceased employee died on 23.10.2008 after retirement. It is also evident from the record that deceased employee had not entered the name of the applicant in service record as his wife. The dispute between the deceased employee and the applicant started under Section 125 of CRPC before the Competent Court for maintenance, which was allowed in favour of the applicant and maintenance was granted to her. Deceased employee was directed to pay Rs. 1500/- per month as maintenance to the applicant.
7. The OA filed on behalf of the applicant was also disposed of on 06.04.2017 with the observation that, "since the respondents have not taken any decision on the application of deceased for not entering the name of the applicant in the service book or rejected the same, the applicant succeeds to establish her case that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Vijay Pal, who was employee of the respondents' organization".
8. From the aforesaid observations the OA was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the applicant for grant of family pension and other retiral dues to the applicant. It also appears that in compliance of the aforesaid direction, the respondents have passed order dated 24.07.2017 and again observing the same fact denied the family pension to the applicant.
9. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased employee Vijay Pal. This fact has been admitted by the Competent Court, thus she is entitled for family Page 3 of 5 OA No. 698 of 2018 pension. If the submission raised across the bar and the fact as has been disclosed in the counter affidavit are compared, there is no dispute between the parties that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee Vijay Pal.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.L. Bhatia (supra) case has held as under:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased government servant, is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short "the rules") notwithstanding the fact that the deceased wife in her nomination did not include the husband. The forums below have taken the view agreeing with the authorities that since the nomination was not in favour of the husband and the husband was staying separate from the wife, the husband would not be entitled to family pension in question. This view cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the rules. It is too well settled that where rights of the parties are governed by statutory provisions, the individual nomination contrary to the statute will not operate.
3. Under Rule 54 sub-rule (14)(b)(i) the expression "family" has been defined thus:
"54. (14)(Z)(i) Wife in the case of a male government servant, or husband in the case of a female government servant...."
4. Sub-rule (8)(ii) of Rule 54 states that:
"54. (8)(R) If a deceased government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child."
5. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and there being no divorce between the husband and wife even though they might be staying separately, the appellant husband would be entitled to the family pension in terms of the rules as noted aforesaid and the authorities, therefore, committed error in not granting family pension to the appellant relying upon the nomination made by the deceased wife of the appellant. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and this appeal stands allowed."
11. Since the applicant is legally wedded wife of the deceased, she was getting maintenance from the deceased employee during his life time under Section 125 CRPC, nothing is on record to show that relation of parties as husband and wife was terminated due to divorce. Thus, Page 4 of 5 OA No. 698 of 2018 respondents ought to have allowed the family pension to the applicant on death of the deceased employee entering her name in the service record and issuing fresh PPO.
12. In view of the above observations the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to allow the family pension to the applicant on death of the deceased employee entering her name in the service record and issuing fresh PPO, within a period of three months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (J) /Piyush/ Page 5 of 5