Mali Pradhan vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is the case of the applicant that her husband - Suni Pradhan, while working as Sr. Gangman under PWI/JJKR/SE.Rly, retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.1988. PPO bearing No. DAO/KUR/Pem/2654/BKIB/Postal/F-184/L-110 was issued in favour of the Govt. employee wherein her photo and name was shown as his wife. Sri Suni Pradhan, husband of the applicant, died on 11.05.2024 leaving behind the applicant, one married son & daughter as well as daughter-in-law, grand-son & grand-daughter as his legal heirs. Whereupon, she submitted application for grant of family pension in her favour. She submitted the documents, sought by Respondent No.2 in letter dated 10.07.2025, for considering sanction of family pension. The snail progress in the matter of grant of family pension, made her to approach this Bench in OA No. 434/2025 wherein respondents filed their counter in which it was stated that at the time of retirement the deceased submitted family declaration in a self sworn affidavit mentioning therein the name and date of birth of his wife as “Mali Dei” and “DoB 07.08.1935”. During pendency of the OA, respondents issued PPO No. 19887310200328 dtd. 28.10.2025 in favour of the applicant, stating therein her date of birth as 18.04.1951. It is stated that due to wrong recording of her date of birth in the PPO, she has been allowed 30% instead of 40% additional family pension. She submitted representation on 20.01.2026 requesting correction of her date of birth in the PPO as “07.08.1935” in place of “18.04.1951”. It is stated that till date since no action was taken, she filed this OA.

Respondents filed their counter inter alia stating that the Ex. Employee, late Suni Pradhan, had submitted a self sworn Affidavit showing family declaration wherein the name of his wife was mentioned as "Mali Dei" and DoB as "07.08.1935" and, subsequently, the same was recorded in the PPO as family Pensioner (wife). After the death of the retired employee, applicant submitted copies of Aadhaar and PAN cards along with an affidavit, stating her age about 74 years and, that, Mali Pradhan" and "Mali Dei, is one and the same and is the wife of “Suni Pradhan”. Local inquiry was also conducted by the Railway authority. Thereafter, family pension PPO was issued based on her affidavit supported by Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, Legal Heir Certificate, and Postal Savings Bank Account stating her DoB as “18.04.1951”. As her date of birth is “18.04.1951”, she will be eligible for additional family pension on attaining age of 80 years and above only as per rules.

Heard. Perused the records.

We find that the applicant raised her claim based on the self made family declaration affidavit submitted by her husband wherein he declared the name of his wife as “Mali Dei” and her DoB as “07.08.1935”. The applicant submitted affidavit stating her age as 74 years supported with the Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, Legal Heir Certificate, and Postal Savings Bank Account stating her DoB as “18.04.1951” to establish that Mali Dei and Mali Pradhan is one and the same and is the widow of late Suni Pradhan. She did not produce any such evidence in support of her DoB as “07.08.1935” rather the documents produced by the respondents signed by the applicant wherein she has stated that her DoB is “18.04.1951”. In absence of any admissible document relating to the DoB of an individual, the Tribunal is not competent to make a roving inquiry and decide what is the actual DoB especially in a case of present nature. In the said circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to allow this OA. However, it is held that in the event the applicant produces any such document permissible under law or order of the competent authority/court of law establishing her date of birth as “07.08.1935” instead of “18.04.1951”, the respondents shall consider the same as per rules.

In the result, the OA stands disposed of along with pending MA, if any. Costs made easy.