Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Deepak Batham vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 10 February, 2020
1 OA No.202/00479/2017
Reasoned
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTINGS: GWALIOR
Original Application No.202/00479/2017
Gwalior, this Monday, the 10th day of February, 2020
HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN TANDON, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Deepak Batham S/o Late Brindavan Batham aged 15 years
(minor) U/G Vinod Batham S/o Ram Dayal, Occupation student
R/o D-31 Banshipura Near Samudayak Bhawan, Morar Chhaoni,
Gwalior (MP) 474020
2. Vinod Batham S/o Ram Dayal Aged 46 years Occupation
Private Job R/o D-31 Banshipura Near Samudayak Bhawan, Morar
Chhaoni, Gwalior (MP) 474020 Mob. 8982098529
-Applicants
(By Advocate -Shri Saurabh Parashar)
Versus
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public
Grievances & Pensioner Welfare Department Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market New Delhi 110003
2. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Pocket-9 Deen Dayal
Upadhyay Marg New Delhi 110124
3. Principal Accountant General (Gen & SAA) Audit Bhawan,
Jhansi Road, Gwalior (MP) 474002
4. Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admn.) O/o Principal
Accountant General (Gen. & SSA) Audit Bhawan, Jhansi Road,
Gwalior (MP) 474002
5. Senior Audit Officer (Admn. 12) O/o Principal Accountant
General (Gen. & SSA) Audit Bhawan Jhansi Road, Gwalior (MP)
474002
6. Pay & Accounts Officer, O/o Accountant General (A& E) I MP
Gwalior 474002 - Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri J.P. Saxena)
Page 1 of 21
2 OA No.202/00479/2017
ORDER
By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM:-
This Original Application has been filed against the arbitrary, illegal and hasty action of respondents regarding non payment of family pension and GPF final payment to applicant No.1 on account of death of father Late Brindavan Batham.
2. The applicant No.1 is the adopted son of Late Shri Brindavan Batham and applicant No.2 is a legal guardian of applicant No.1, as he was minor at the time of filing of this application.
3. The applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.1 That the present application filed by the applicants may be allowed.
8.2 That respondents particularly respondent No.3 to 6 may be directed to make payment of family pension to applicant No.1 w.e.f. 01-03-2014 and arrear arising as result of sanction of family pension may also be ordered to be paid along with interest for delay in payment.
8.3 Respondents may also be directed to make payment of general provident fund Rs.103294/- lying in balance on 01-03-2014 at the time of death of late Brindavan Batham to applicant No.1.Page 2 of 21 3 OA No.202/00479/2017
8.4 Respondents may be directed to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for delay in payment of the amount of general provident fund Rs.103924 w.e.f. 01-03-2014 to the date of actual payment.
8.5 Cost of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges may be allowed.
8.6 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the interest of justice."
4. As per pleadings the case of the applicants is that Late Brindavan Batham was appointed as daily wage employee on 03.08.1983 and worked upto 05.10.1989. Thereafter Late Brindavan Batham was regularized and appointed on the post of Chowkidar vide order dated 23.09.1989. He worked as MTS vide order dated 06.10.1989 upto his death i.e. 01.03.2014. Late Brvindavan Batham vide his application dated 26.08.2011 informed respondent No.5 that he wants to adopt applicant No.1 as his son. He adopted applicant No.1 as his son by executing adoption deed duly notarized by notary on 14.07.2012 and concessional certificate dated 06.02.2012 issued by Chairman, Disability Board, Gwalior which are enclosed as annexure A-1 to A-4 Colly. Panchnama with Page 3 of 21 4 OA No.202/00479/2017 regard to adoption of applicant No.1 was also prepared on 14.07.2012 by socially reputed person, which is enclosed as Annexure A-5. Late Brindavan Batham filled up nomination in favour of his son i.e. Applicant No.1 in the office of respondent No.3 under Rule 53 (1)(i) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 on 24.07.2012 during his lifetime and entry to this effect was made in his service book for authorization of pension and other retiral dues in the event of his death. It is a statutory provision in pension rules that where valid nomination exists, the claim of nominees should be settled expeditiously but respondents deliberately avoided to follow the above rule. Copy of nomination forms dated 24.07.2012 is annexed as Annexure A-6 colly. The father of applicant No.1 i.e. Brindavan Batham died on 01.03.2014 while in service. The death certificate annexed at Annexure A/7.
5. After the death of father of applicant No.1, applicant No.2 sought information under Right to Information Act regarding details of family pension and other retiral Page 4 of 21 5 OA No.202/00479/2017 benefits payable to applicant No.1 through applicant No.2 vide application dated 20.05.2014. The respondent No.4 asked applicants to disclose the full details and name of recipient of payment of family pension, DCRG and other retiral dues vide letter dated 27.05.2014. Applicant No.2 replied to the said letter and requested to furnish the details of retiral dues and other terminal benefits payable to legal heir of deceased Brivdavan Batham on 18.06.2014. Copy of aforesaid letter are annexed as Annexure A-8.
6. Respondent No.5 vide letter dated 27.06.2014 informed applicant No.2 that nomination made by Late Brindavan Batham, MTS in favour of his son Deepak Batham (applicant No.1) during his lifetime is not valid. Therefore, succession certificate for payment of pensionary claims and other dues payable to applicant NO.1 after the death of Brindavan Batham may be obtained from court of law and submit the same to respondent-office. Copy of which is annexed at Annexure A-9. The respondent No.5 and 6 furnished the details of Page 5 of 21 6 OA No.202/00479/2017 retiral dues of Late Brindavan Batham to applicant No.2 vide letter dated 29.04.2015 and 30.04.2015 respectively (Annexure A-10 colly.)
7. The applicants filed application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act 1925 before the Court of VII Civil Judge, Class I Gwalior which was registered as 77/2014 Succession which is annexed at Annexure A-11. The Civil Judge Class-I vide order dated 12.08.2015 held that applicant No.1 is a son of Late Brindavan Batham and in view of this fact he is legally entitled to receive all payment and issued succession certificate dated 11.02.2016. Copy of which are annexed at Annexure A-12 colly. After passing the said order and issuance of succession certificate, respondents paid the post retiral claim of Late Brindavan Batham to applicant No.1 vide letter dated 06.10.2016. The payment of family pension and GPF has not been made. Copy of which is annexed at annexure A-13.
Page 6 of 21 7 OA No.202/00479/2017
8. The respondent No.5 issued letter dated 30.09.2015 to applicants to submit pension papers and GPF final payment withdrawal form and in pursuance of aforesaid letter, applicant No.2 submitted pension papers duly filled in by applicant No.1 to respondent No.3. But respondents No.4 and 5 refused to receive the same. Thereafter applicants sent pension papers and GPF final withdrawal form to respondent No.3 office through registered AD post on 09.06.2017 which are annexed at Annexure A-14 colly. Even after submission of pension papers and GPF final withdrawal application respondents have not make payment. Hence this Original Application.
9. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that Late Shri Brindavan Batham worked as MTS in the office of respondent No.3. He died on 01.03.2014 while in service. During his lifetime he filed nomination and affidavit showing applicant No.1 as his son which was not appropriate adoption certificate hence not valid. Thereafter Applicant No.2 was informed to Page 7 of 21 8 OA No.202/00479/2017 obtain succession certificate from competent court of law by the office of respondent No.3. In pursuance of the said information, applicants filed succession application in the court of VII Civil Judge Class I Gwalior which was registered as case No.MIC-SUC/00077/2014. In the said case, court vide order dated 12.08.2015 decided that Deepak Batham is successor of Late Brindavan Batham and is entitled to receive pensionary benefits through his grandfather applicant No.2.
10. In compliance of the said order, payment of retiral claims regarding DCRG, CGEIS, Leave encashment has been made to applicant through his legal guardian applicant No.2. Payment of GPF Rs.1,03,394/- has been transferred to Bank Account of Applicant No.2 of Canara Bank Branch Gwalior. Respondents further submitted that in para 14 of the said order dated 12.08.2015, the learned VII Civil Judge Class I Gwalior observed that family pension of deceased government servant Brindavan Batham is worked out to be Rs.5320/- p.m. for ten years Page 8 of 21 9 OA No.202/00479/2017 from next date of his death and thereafter @ Rs.3500/- p.m. but how much total amount of family pension shall be payable, this cannot be ascertained. Therefore the payment of family pension cannot be categorized within the definition of debt and security in terms of the provisions of Section 370 of Indian Succession Act.
11. Secondly family pension is authorized as per departmental rules. Therefore, succession certificate with regard to payment of family pension may not be issued. As per Rule 54 (14)(b) ii of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, the family pension is payable to "unmarried son who has not attained the age of 25 years and unmarried or widow or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally". Since adoption certificate is not valid hence family pension is not payable to applicant No.1 in terms of provision of Rule 54 (14)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which was also confirmed by Headquarter vide letter dated 14.03.2017 annexed at Annexure R/1. Thereafter vide office letter dated 28.03.2017, applicant Page 9 of 21 10 OA No.202/00479/2017 No.2 was informed and was asked to submit valid adoption certificate with respect to applicant No.1 or to submit papers/documents in favour of eligible family members, for authorization of family pension but he again submitted the papers for authorization of family pension in favour of applicant No.1 being adopted son of deceased government servant Brindavan Batham which were not accepted.
12. Respondents submitted that the payment of GPF amounting to Rs.103294/- has been made to applicant No.2 by way of transfer of money to his saving bank account. As regards to payment of family pension, Civil Court has not issued any direction in its order dated 12.08.2015 in Civil Case No.77/2014. The Headquarter office in its letter dated 14.03.2017 clarified that adoption certificate is not valid, therefore family pension of Late Brindavan Batham cannot be sanctioned to applicant No.1. Hence family pension was not sanctioned to applicant No.1.
Page 10 of 21 11 OA No.202/00479/2017
13. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. The averments made in the Original Application are reiterated and the applicant has further stated that the applicant No.1 who is a minor son of Late Brindavan Batham and was solely dependent on his father for the livelihood and also was declared as a son/legal heir by Late Brindavan during his lifetime via social rituals and adoption deed, as well as in nomination documents submitted before respondent-authorities in his life-time, therefore applicant No.1 Deepak Batham falls within the purview of Rule 54 (14)ii of CCS (Pension) Rules,1972.
14. It has been specifically submitted by the applicants that succession certificate has already been issued by the court of law holding the adoption deed to be valid hence at this stage respondents cannot challenge the credibility of such adoption deed therefore the applicants deserves for the payment of family pension. All the relevant documents which are in favour of the eligible family members have already been submitted to the respondent- Page 11 of 21 12 OA No.202/00479/2017 department and has again submitted the papers. It has been further submitted by the applicants that applicant No.1 is a son of deceased Brindavan Batham in the eye of law and Punchnama has already been prepared. The said Punchnama was produced before the Learned VII Civil Judge Class I Gwalior and respondent-department was made party in the said case, if the respondents have objection over the Punchnama this ought to have been raised in succession court, which was never raised by the respondents. Now, the respondents are estopped to raise issue regarding the legality or illegality of said punchnama. Subsequently Brindavan Batham furnished nominations i.e. Annexure A/6 and other requisite documents declaring applicant No.1 Deepak Batham as his son during his lifetime to the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities has never informed or intimated during his lifetime with regard to adoption certificate or any other documents being not in proper certification or not in appropriate format. Now after passing away of the Page 12 of 21 13 OA No.202/00479/2017 government servant Late Brindavan Batham are raising objections unnecessarily, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The adoption deed was executed by deceased Government servant duly notarized by notary and was filed in office of respondents with nomination in favour of applicant No.1 The same has been held valid by the competent court of law.
15. It has been further submitted by the applicants that the respondents have raised objection regarding the order passed by learned Civil Judge Class-I that on order has been passed with regard to payment of family pension whereas the succession certificate was issued by learned Civil Court for the legal payment of hard earned money of the deceased to his legal heir i.e. applicant No.1. It is also well established that applicant No.1 is only the legal heir and no other legal heir is on record and he being a minor was totally dependent on his deceased father. Therefore, no specific order is required for payment of family pension in favour of applicant No.1 and it is ought to paid as per Page 13 of 21 14 OA No.202/00479/2017 existing law and rules. Applicant further submitted that as per Rule 50(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 the definition of word "Family" is provided in relation to the Government Servants, wherein under sub-clause (iii) states that "sons including stepsons and adopted sons" are also covered therefore applicant No.1 being legally adopted by deceased government servant in his lifetime and adoption deed has already been held valid and legal by succession court. Therefore all the retiral benefits are to be given including family pension in light of the provision of Rule 50(6)(iii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
16. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents annexed with the pleadings.
17. From the pleadings it is clear that applicant No.1 is adopted by Late Shri Brindavan Batham who was working on the post of Chowkidar with the respondent-department. It is also admitted fact that Late Shri Brindavan Batham died on 01.03.2014. From the record of the case, the Disability Board Gwalior has issued certificate and Late Page 14 of 21 15 OA No.202/00479/2017 Shri Brindavan Bathm has supplied copy of adaptation deed duly notarized by notary on 14.07.2012, concessional certificate dated 06.02.2012 to the respondent-department. Punchnama with regard to adoption of applicant No.1 was also prepared on 14.07.2012 by socially reputed person (Annexure A-5).
18. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Late Shri Brindavan Batham had also filed nomination paper to the respondent-department in favour of applicant No.1 (Deepak Batham) during his lifetime and the deceased Brindavan Batham had adopted applicant No.1 and adoption deed was prepared and further Punchnama was prepared by socially reputed persons (Annexure A/5). So, the applicant was entitled for family pension under Rule 53(1)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
19. Further the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent-department has asked the applicant to procure succession certificate and resultantly Page 15 of 21 16 OA No.202/00479/2017 the applicant had filed application before the competent court of law for procuring the succession certificate. The said application was allowed by competent court of law vide order dated 12.08.2015 and held that applicant No.1 is a son of Late Brindavan Batham and the succession certificate was issued on 11.02.2016 (Annexure A-12). The respondent-department has paid post retiral claim of Late Brindavan Batham to applicant No.1 vide letter dated 06.10.2016. So, the respondents are duty bound to grant family pension to applicant No.1 who is a legal adopted son of Late Shri Brindavan Batham.
20. On the other side the contention of the respondent- department is that Shri Brindavan Batham had died on 01.03.2014. Though the succession certificate was procured by the applicants from the competent court of law and in view of said succession certificate the payment of retiral claim regarding DCRG, CGEIS, Leave encashment has been made to the applicants. The family pension is to be given as per departmental rules. So, Page 16 of 21 17 OA No.202/00479/2017 succession certificate with regard to family pension cannot be issued as the adoption certificate is not valid. So the family pension is not being issued to the applicant No.1 in terms of provision of Rule 54(14)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
21. From the record filed at Annexure A/13 it is clear that the respondent-department was also party to the application before VII Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior. If this document is minutely seen the respondent-department has taken objection as indicated by the learned Civil Judge in Para 4 of its order (Annexure A/12), where it has been indicated by the respondent-department that the adoption deed is not valid. The learned Civil Judge has held that applicant No.1 is a class one heir of Late Shri Brindavan Batham. Such finding is there in Para 19 of the order passed by VII Civil Judge Class I Gwalior (Annexure A/12). It has specifically held by learned Civil Judge that applicant No.1 (Deepak Batham) is a Class-I heir of Late Shri Brindavan Batham. It is true that the succession Page 17 of 21 18 OA No.202/00479/2017 certificate is valid for the purpose of property of the deceased, but the finding has come to the fact that the applicant No.1 is a Class-I heir of Late Shri Brindavan Batham. At this stage in this present Original Application, the respondent-department are estopped to take such objection. Needless to say that applicant No.1 (Deepak Batham) has been held as Class-I heir of Late Shri Brindavan Batham by the competent court of law. This Tribunal is bound to honour and follow the order passed by Civil Judge. As the respondents have taken objection regarding the adoption deed, the Civil Judge has held that Deepak Batham is a Class-I heir of Late Shri Brindavan Batham. If the respondents have any grievance they should have challenged the relevant findings of the Civil Judge as per law before the appellate court. So the respondent-department is estopped to raise such objection in the present case. So such objection regarding validity of adoption deed by the respondent-department is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Page 18 of 21 19 OA No.202/00479/2017
22. It is also clear from the reply of the respondent- department that the department has paid the retiral dues regarding DCRG, CEGIS, leave encashment to the applicants. The only issue is regarding the family pension. As per Rule 54 (14)(b) ii of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. The family pension is payable to "unmarried son who has not attained the age of 25 years and unmarried or widow or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally". So as per said provision, the applicant No.1 is a class-I heir of Late Shri Brindavan Batham as held by Civil Judge Class I Gwalior. The sons include the adopted son. Though the respondent-department was party before the Civil Judge, has raised the legality of the adoption deed but the Civil Judge has concluded in the findings that the applicant No.1 is the class-I heir of late Shri Brindavan Batham. So, in view of this applicant No.1 is entitled for family pension after the death of Brindavan Batham. Further it is also clear from the pleadings that Late Shri Brindavan Batham has made available the Page 19 of 21 20 OA No.202/00479/2017 adoption deed, punchnama and has also filed nomination form, in his lifetime to the respondent-department in favour of the applicant No.1. These facts also strengthen the case of the applicants. The respondent-department are expected to act as per their available record and the documents as indicated earlier which are in the possession of the respondent-department. It is also clear from the adoption deed that it has been executed by the deceased Government servant duly notarized by the notary and was filed in the office of respondents in favour of applicant No.1. So in view of the finding arrived at in favour of the applicant No.1, being a class-I heir of the deceased Brindavan Batham and also the documents on record of the respondent-department, the applicant No.1 is entitled for family pension.
23. In view of our findings narrated above, respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant No.1 for grant of family pension w.e.f. 01.03.2014 and other remaining retiral dues, being a class-I heir of late Shri Page 20 of 21 21 OA No.202/00479/2017 Brindavan Batham, within a period of 60 days after receiving the order of this Tribunal, failing which the applicants shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of GPF.
24. Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of. No costs.
(Ramesh Singh Thakur) (Navin Tandon)
Judicial Member Administrative Member
kc
Page 21 of 21