Hari Niwas & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Shri Rishi Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

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

The brief fact of the case is that the applicants’ father who was working as Tailor in OCF Shahjahanpur retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2002 and was receiving the pension as per rules. He died on 24.12.2005. It is further pleaded that first wife of the deceased employee had died in the year 1990 thereafter he married to one Smt. Siya Devi who also died in the year 2004. The applicants who were the children of the second wife were minor at the time of death of the deceased employee. Since other legal heirs were major, thus, on the death of the deceased employee, the applicants were entitled for family pension up to the age of 25 years. Thus, specific prayer has been made for direction to the respondents to make the payment of the family pension to the applicants, which is due after the death of deceased employee namely Fakire Lal.

The respondents by counter affidavit admitted that father of the applicants namely Fakire Lal expired on 24.12.2005 who had retired from service on 31.12.2002. In para 23 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have clearly mentioned that both the applicants were the children of the second wife of the deceased employee and were aged about 06 years and 04 years respectively at the time of death of the deceased employee. At the time of death of the deceased employee, first wife and second wife both have died but family pension could not be allowed to them. It has been pleaded that certain information required at the end of department regarding the income of children of first wife could not be furnished by the applicants due to this reason, the family pension could not be allowed to the applicants. Thus, on the basis of income of the children of the first wife, respondents have directly denied the family pension to the applicants.

Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed stating almost the same fact as stated in the OA. No new fact has been taken in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard the rival submissions.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that despite this fact that applicants name i.e. Hari Niwas and Km. Shridevi were entered in the nomination form of the deceased employee and they were minor at the time of death of the deceased employee, the respondents did not grant them family pension on whimsical ground. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicants referred the fact disclosed in the OA as well as in the counter affidavit and further prayed to allow the OA with a direction to the respondents to grant the family pension and arrear thereof.

Learned counsel for the respondents specifically referring to the Annexure–A-5 of the OA argued that details required from the applicants regarding the income of Shri Mahendra, the son of the first wife and his marital status was not furnished by them, due to this reason, the family pension could not be considered and allowed. Thus, argued to dismiss the OA.

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

The admitted fact between the parties is that the deceased employee, in his nomination form submitted at the time of his retirement for GPF and other retiral dues, disclosed the names of both the applicants as his children, who were minors at the time of his death. The applicants' case is that they submitted an application for family pension for the first time in the year 2007 through their uncle. The respondents, on one ground or another, which was not related to the applicants, denied the family pension. Whether the children of the first wife were major/earning members or were receiving any other type of emoluments is of no concern for deciding the entitlement of the applicants to family pension. Children born from the second marriage, whether the marriage is legal or otherwise, would also be entitled to family pension and other retiral dues, as well as consideration for compassionate appointment, subject to the applicable rules. Thus, once the respondents admitted the existence of the applicants and their claim, they ought to have considered and allowed the family pension in their favour in accordance with law. Accordingly, the OA is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order granting the family pension in favour of the applicants from the date when they were eligible and entitled for family pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failing which simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum will attract. No order as to costs.

All associated MAs also stand disposed of.