Kanti Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to issue family pension and arrears of family pension to her from the date of death of her unmarried son to the date of actual payment along with interest. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the son of the applicant died while in the duty of the respondents but family pension in that regard has not been paid to the applicant despite request. Applicant has claimed that as per the extant rules, after the death of her son, the applicant is liable to be given the benefit of family pension but the same has not been given to her by the respondents on one ground or other.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the son of the applicant namely Late Satish Kumar Singh was initially appointed on the post of Helper Khalasi in Western Railway vide order dated 04.07.2019.He was again selected and appointed on Group C post of Technician Track Machine, Northern Railway, Gauriganj and gave Central Administrative Tribunal^{resignation from the previous post and vide order dated 14.07.2020,} joined the new post. He was paid salary on 31.08.2020 for the month of August 2020. However, while on duty, he was murdered on 18.08.2020 and his dead body was recovered later on 23.08.2020. The respondent no 3 provided an amount of Rs 10,000/- to the father of the deceased for cremation. Death certificate in this respect was issued on 07.09.2020. The applicant submitted application dated 28.10.2020 before the respondent no 2 seeking family pension after the death of her unmarried son but nothing was done. Father of the deceased employee also made representation dated 23.11.2020 before the respondent no 2 but for no avail. Vide information received under RTI, the applicant came to know that after verification of the service book of the deceased employee, necessary action will be taken regarding family pension etc. but nothing has been done till date. Neither PPO has been issued nor has family pension been released till date to the applicant. Another representation dated 04.03.2024 was also preferred by the father of the deceased employee. Later, another application dated 31.05.2024 was preferred by the applicant before the respondent no 1 and 2 requesting for issuance of PPO and family pension with the arrears. Learned counsel argued that although an amount of Rs 30,000/- was paid on 07.05.2024, no evidence was provided as on what basis the aforesaid amount was paid. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the unmarried son of the applicant died on 18.08.2020 while on duty and thus after the death of her son the applicant is entitled for family pension and therefore, prayer is made to allow the OA thereby directing the respondents to release family pension to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit, argued that after the death of the employee concerned, her mother (the applicant) is claiming for issuance of family pension in her favour. Learned counsel further argued that according to Para 2 (C) of Railway Servant Pass Rule, 1986 (1993 edition), if father of the employee is alive then the mother of the employee cannot be Central Administrative Tribunal^{considered as dependent and therefore, as per above rule, family} pension to the mother of the late employee is not admissible. Thus, prayer was made to dismiss the original application being devoid of merits.

Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant reiterating the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated in the OA. Learned counsel further argued that the ground taken by the respondents to reject the claim of the applicant that she cannot be considered for family pension is absolutely wrong. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the RBA No 37 of 2021 dated 05.07.2021 issued by Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India.

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records.

As per the counter affidavit, the respondents are denying the family pension to the applicant on the ground that the father of the deceased employee is alive and only he will be considered for family pension. It is also the stand of the respondents that applicant would have been considered for family pension if the father of the deceased employee had not been alive. The said employee was working in the Railway department and died during service period. Letter dated 05.07.2021 issued by Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India i.e. RBA No 37 of 2021 as annexed in Annexure No 1 and a chart has also been provided in it under the heading of eligibility of family members for family pension and at sl no 5, it is disclosed that mother of the employee will be given preference in the absence of spouse, unmarried dependent son or unmarried dependent daughter below the age of 25 years, dependent child suffering from a mental or physical disability and dependent unmarried / widowed / divorced daughter.

To adjudicate this controversy, it would be in the fitness of things to refer to the relevant provision of Railway Services (Pension) Rules. Further, it is pertinent to record here that Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 have now been replaced with Central Administrative Tribunal^{Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026 and Rule 75 Sub Rule 10 of} Railway Services (Pension) Rules that deals with the issue of family pension is analogous to the provision of Rule 50 Sub Rule 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026 which is quoted herein below:

Thus, the aforesaid quotation makes is explicitly clear that respondents are wrong in their stand that “if father of the employee is alive then the mother of the employee cannot be considered as dependent and therefore, as per above rule, family pension to the mother of the late employee is not admissible”; and thus, the instant case is liable to be allowed in favour of the applicant. It is also pertinent to record here that having compared the plea taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit with the provision of Rule 50 Sub Rule 10 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026as well as the provision of RBA No 37 of 2021 and also the OM dated 21.07.1999 issued by DoPT, I am of the considered view that plea taken by the respondents by relying upon the Railway Servants Pass Rules, 1986 is not acceptable. The aforesaid quoted and discussed rule of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026 clearly establishes that the family pension, wherever admissible to the parents, shall be payable to the mother of the deceased railway servant or pensioner failing which to the father of the deceased railway servant or pensioner.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is allowed directing the competent authority amongst the respondents to pass necessary orders to release the family pension to the applicant in light of the observations recorded in the instant judgment. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid payment shall attract an interest @ GPF rate.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.