Anjana Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hari Om Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :

The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application, are that the applicant’s husband was appointed in the Railways on compassionate grounds on 29.10.1999. In 2009, he met with an accident and, consequently, could not attend his duties. After recovering, he rejoined duty on 08.03.2011. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to him on the charge of unauthorised absence, and, following the inquiry, he was removed from service vide order dated 30.03.2012. His appeal against the said order was also dismissed on 04.08.2012. Meanwhile, the applicant’s husband died on 27.05.2012. Subsequently, the applicant preferred a revision petition challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 601/2014, which was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2021, whereby the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities were set aside, and the competent authority was directed to impose a lesser punishment than dismissal or removal from service. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the applicant submitted a representation along with a copy of the Tribunal’s order, pursuant to which the appellate authority passed a fresh order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the applicant’s deceased husband. It is contended that, in view of the said order, the applicant is entitled to the terminal benefits admissible in respect of her deceased husband, including family pension. However, despite repeated requests, the respondents have denied the said benefits to the applicant. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed, seeking the grant of admissible terminal benefits and family pension by invoking the provisions of Rule 64 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have reiterated substantially the same facts as narrated in the Original Application. It has been stated that the amounts payable towards Provident Fund and GIS have already been paid in favour of the employee concerned, while the other terminal benefits, namely, gratuity and leave encashment, are under process. The respondents have further contended that the applicant is not entitled to family pension under the applicable pension rules, as her deceased husband had not completed the requisite qualifying service. Accordingly, the respondents have disputed the applicant’s claim for family pension. The respondents have also annexed Annexure CA-1, disclosing the amounts payable to the applicant under the admissible heads. The other averments made in the counter affidavit need not be reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit, controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating substantially the same facts and grounds as stated in the Original Application.

A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents, along with photocopies of the service records of the employee concerned.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is entitled to family pension, as her deceased husband was appointed to a permanent post in the Railways and the punishment of removal from service, imposed upon him in the year 2012, was subsequently modified to compulsory retirement in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal. It is further contended that the applicant is entitled to receive all admissible terminal benefits of her deceased husband and, being the legally entitled claimant, is also entitled to family pension in accordance with the applicable rules. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the provisions of Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. He has also relied upon the following case laws:—

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the applicant is not entitled to family pension, as her deceased husband had rendered qualifying service of less than ten years. It is further submitted that the punishment of removal from service originally imposed upon the applicant’s husband was subsequently modified to compulsory retirement in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal. Referring to Annexure CA-1, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the qualifying service rendered by the deceased employee was only 5 years, 4 months and 25 days. It is further submitted that the admissible terminal benefits have been calculated, out of which certain amounts have already been paid to the applicant, while the remaining amounts are under process. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

It is pertinent to mention that the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 have since been replaced by the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026. Accordingly, the provisions of the old Rules, particularly Rules 64 and 75, are required to be considered with reference to the corresponding provisions of the new Rules, wherever applicable. Therefore, the claim of the applicant for family pension and other admissible settlement dues shall be examined in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026.

Before discussing the submission raised across the BAR, it will be useful to quote the relevant rules for family pension of Railway services (Pension) Rules 2026. The same is as under:-

Similarly, it will also be useful to reproduce the relevant rule for compulsory retirement pensions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rule 2026. The same is as under:-

Admittedly, the applicant’s husband, namely, Dharmendra Kumar, was serving in the respondents’ department and met with an accident in the year 2009, due to which he remained absent from duty for some period. After recovering, he rejoined service, whereafter a charge-sheet was issued to him and the punishment of removal from service was imposed. However, the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities were subsequently set aside by this Tribunal in the earlier Original Application, and the appellate authority, in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. This fact itself establishes the applicant’s entitlement to the admissible retiral benefits of her deceased husband in accordance with the applicable rules. The respondents have stated that the process of payment of retiral dues is underway and that certain amounts have already been paid, but they have denied the applicant’s claim for family pension.

Having considered the issue of family pension in the light of the judgment passed by this Bench in Smt. Chandrakala (supra) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mala Devi (supra), it is clear that the applicant’s husband was appointed to a permanent post, had rendered more than one year of service and died during the period of his service. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to family pension in accordance with the applicable rules and the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. The contention of the respondents that the applicant is not entitled to family pension merely because her deceased husband had rendered less than ten years of qualifying service is, therefore, not acceptable. The applicant’s case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mala Devi (supra) and by this Bench in Smt. Chandrakala (supra). Accordingly, the denial of family pension to the applicant is unsustainable in law.

As regards the other retiral benefits admissible to the applicant, since the punishment of removal from service has been set aside and substituted with the punishment of compulsory retirement, the respondents are directed to reconsider the qualifying service of the deceased employee by taking into account the intervening period from the date of the original order of removal until the date on which the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed, in accordance with the applicable rules. Upon such recalculation, the respondents shall release the admissible retiral benefits to the applicant in accordance with law, after adjusting the amounts, if any, already paid. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed with the aforesaid directions. The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the applicant and complete the exercise of recalculating and releasing the admissible retiral benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

All associated MAs also stand disposed of.