AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member J
By way of the present O.A., the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 31.03.2023. The relief sought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is quoted below: -
“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondents.
(ii) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to pay family pension to the applicant since October, 2018 with arrears and interest thereupon.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings, is that the father of applicant who was working in the respondents’ department expired on 02.09.1988 during service career. After the death of deceased employee, the mother of applicant had been getting the family pension. Unfortunately, she also died on 10.01.2006. Thereafter, being unmarried daughter, the family pension has been started in favour of applicant since 2008 and PPO dated 24.04.2008 was issued in her favour. The pension in favour of applicant had been continued up to October, 2018. After the sudden stoppage of family pension, she has moved an application/ representation on 15.11.2018. Thereafter, she again submitted an application before the respondents on 25.02.2019 and in reply, the respondents have asked the applicant to appear along with certain documents for release of family pension in her favour. After about one year, the respondents issued a letter dated 17.10.2020 that your name in the documents submitted by you is mentioned as ‘Rani Tiwari’ while in the service record name of applicant is mentioned as ‘Rani’ hence, it is not admissible to process the family pension in favour of applicant. The applicant submitted the reply and mentioned that inadvertently her name was mentioned by her father as ‘Rani’ in his service record. On 16.12.2020, the respondents have again issued letter thereby informed to the applicant that as you have attained the age of 25 years in the month of July, 2018 and as such your pension has been stopped. The applicant has been directed to clear the confusion in the name of applicant by publishing it in news paper and thereafter in the gazette and provide the same in original to this office so that further process in respect of family pension has been started. As per direction of the respondents, the applicant published the same in news paper and also gazetted in the Gazette and provided the same to the respondents. It is submitted by the applicant that on 15.09.2021, the respondents issued letter to the applicant and informed that in your school certificate your date of birth is 27.07.1992 which shown that you born after four years of death of your father, which is not understandable. Thereafter, on 27.12.2022, the applicant submitted reply of the letter dated 15.09.2021 and submitted that at the time of death of my father, I was child and have no knowledge about the fact that what date of birth has been mentioned in my school documents by my parents. The applicant further submitted that as per existing policy, I being unmarried/unemployed daughter of Late Jag Narain Tiwari and as such my claim for family pension may be preceded accordingly. In response thereof the respondents have again issued letter dated 25.02.2023 and reiterated the letter dated 15.09.2021. On 23.03.2023, the applicant submitted an application before the respondent no.3 and submitted that accounts officer has rejected my claim for grant of family pension on the basis of irrelevant and unreasonable ground. The respondents have, however, not paid any heed to the request of applicant and rejected the claim of applicant. Thereafter, she is running from pillar to post to get any relief from the respondents. Hence, she has filed the present O.A.
The respondents have filed the counter affidavit giving the family details, submitted by mother of the applicant by which it appears that on 27.07.1988, at about death of father of applicant, the age of applicant was 18 months. It is submitted that as per existing family pension rule after the demise of government servant, family pension will be endorsed to Smt. Malti Devi wife of Late Jag Narayan Tiwari getting family pension up to her death on 10.01.2006. After the death of Smt. Malti Devi, the applicant availed the family pension being unmarried daughter/unemployed daughter vide PPO dated 13 September 2018. On attaining the age of 25 yrs i.e. 26.07.2017 as per Date of birth mentioned in her PPO, the bank has stopped her pension. The applicant has approached the office of the respondents for extension of her family pension as she is still unmarried/unemployed. However, on scrutiny of her documents i.e. family detail, PPO etc., it is found that the father of applicant expired on 02.09.1988 and date of birth of applicant, as mentioned in the High School certificate, was shown as 27.07.1992. Due to above discrepancy in the date of birth of applicant, her case cannot be processed further. The issue regarding applicant has also taken up with PCDA (P), Prayagraj for clarification on the subject. On the subject. PCDA (P) Prayagraj vide their letter No. GI/(c)/GATE PASS/V/2023 dated 12.07.2023 suggested that HOO to check the genuineness and eligibility of the case. Verify the family details furnish by Government servant during his life time the family detail of deceased (her father). It is found after detail from service document, the age of the applicant has been endorsed as about 18 months in the year 1988. The respondents have further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, New Delhi vide letter dated 13.09.2012 has circulated that in the case of children, certificate of birth from the municipal authorities or from the local panchayat or from Head of a Recognized School is permissible. As the applicant has produced educational certificate of 10th with date of birth as 27.07.1992, which is after four years of death of his father, same is not logical and not acceptable. Hence, the respondents have prayed that as there is no merit in the O.A., same may be dismissed.
Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
The O.A. has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 vide which the family pension of applicant has been stopped with remarks that the father of applicant Late Jag Narayan Tiwari expired on 02.09.1988. However, the date of birth of applicant as per High School certificate is shown as 27.07.1992 hence, on the said infirmity, family pension in favour of the applicant, claiming herself to be unmarried daughter of deceased employee, is not permissible. From the record, the admitted position is as per PPO No. C/AOC/07/2008 issued on 24.04.2008 by the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad issued in favour of applicant namely ‘KM. RANI’ D/o Late Jagnarain Tiwari. From perusal of PPO, it is an admitted position that the date of birth of applicant has been shown as ‘27.07.1992’ and family pension was allowed in favour of the applicant. The family pension of applicant was stopped meanwhile on the ground of some unknown reason after October, 2018. Thereafter, the applicant has moved representation for continuation of family pension. After several representations, the Accounts Officer of 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad Fort has intimated the applicant on 17.10.2020, as under: -
“On the scrutiny of documents submitted vide your application dated 30 Sep 2020 and service records of your father Late Jag Narain Tiwari, it is observed that your name is mentioned as RANI TIWARI in your Aadhaar Card, in all the affidavits and in photo copy of Bank Pass Book and in the Previous PPO and service record of your father your name is mentioned as RANI which is not admissible in order to process family pension in your favour.”
The aforesaid discrepancy was removed by the applicant after publication in the daily Newspaper and provided the documents to the respondents such as High School certificate, PAN card, Aadhaar Card and bank account etc. Later on, the respondents’ department has further intimated the applicant vide letter dated 15.09.2021 as under: -
“It is submitted that as per service records of Ex. T. No. 6084 Labour Late Jag Narain Tiwari (your father) expired on 02 Sep 1988.
On scrutiny of documents as submitted by you for family pension it is found from High School Certificate that your date of birth is 27/07/1992, Which shows that you have born after four years of the death of your father which is not understood.
Analysis of the above it is to inform you that this unit is unable to process the case in vogue of above mentioned discrepancy in your favour for family pension.”
Later on, the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad has also intimated that on account of discrepancy in the date of birth and date of death of the father (deceased employee), the claim of applicant for family pension is doubtful and accordingly, applicant was directed to contact the office of her father.
The respondents in their counter affidavit (in Annexure CA-3) has provided the details of family members, as intimated by mother of applicant, on 27.09.1988 as under: -
“Subedar
Son
12 years
Unmarried
Suresh
Son
08 years
Unmarried
Km. Gudiya
Daughter
05 years
Unmarried
Km. Rani
Daughter
1½years
Unmarried”
From the perusal of record, it is admitted position that the respondents’ authority has admitted the Malti Devi as widow, two sons Subedar and Suresh, two daughters Km. Gudiya and Km. Rani as legal heirs of Late Jag Narain Tiwari and from perusal of letter dated 17.10.2020, the Accounts Officer of 508 Army Base Workshop (respondents’ department) has admitted the name of ‘Km. RANI’ in the service record of deceased employee. Accordingly, there is no dispute that Km. RANI is the daughter of deceased employee. The only objection which has been taken by the respondents’ authority is that the date of death of deceased employee is shown as 02.09.1988 while the date of birth of applicant has been shown as ’27.07.1992’ which appears to be illogical to the respondents’ authorities.
In the case of “Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and others (2019) 12 SCC 370, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the date of birth reflected in the matriculation certificate could not be accepted as authentic or credible. The Bench observed that the date of birth in the records maintained by the CBSE was recorded purely on the basis of the final list of students forwarded by the Senior Secondary School where the second respondent had student from Class 5th to 10th. There is a clear and unimpeachable evidence in the form of the date of birth which has been recorded in the records of school which is supported by the voluntary disclosure made by the second respondent while obtaining both the Aadhaar card and the driving licence. Therefore, the Bench stated that there was clear unimpeachable evidence of date of birth which has been recorded in the records of school. On the basis of said position, Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the date of birth recorded in Matriculation certificate and held that the first evidence in school records is as actual date of birth.
It is observed from the pleadings that the date of birth so intimated by the father during service period or by the mother on 27.09.1988 after the demise of deceased employee is to be considered as first primary evidence in public record. Subsequently the mother has recorded lesser age of her children in the school admission certificate than the actual age to get undue advantage of the age. When the children grown up either they tried to get corrected the same by submitting the application or approaching before the Court, they suffer a lot from one office to another, for no fault of them. In the instant case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the correct date of birth is that which has been declared by the parents and recorded in the Service Book of deceased employee and considering the same as authentic, no dispute emerges as applicant being daughter. Considering these aspects, the respondents’ department has issued the PPO No. C/AOC/07/2008 issued in April, 2008 and accordingly, the family pension had been given to the applicant till 2018. Thereafter, same was discontinued on the ground of some objections.
The first primary evidence with regard to dependent daughter is admitted by the respondents’ department and thereafter death of deceased employee namely Late Jag Narayan Tiwari occurred on 02.09.1988. The wife of deceased employee has made declaration on 27.09.1988 showing applicant as dependent and her age shown was 1 ½ (One and half) years old. Considering these documents and declaration, family pension in favour of applicant was started vide PPO dated 24.04.2008. Thereafter, at this stage, discontinuation on the ground that date of birth in matriculation certificate, aadhaar card etc. is not matching with the original documents/declaration, is not admissible as the evidence with regard to date of birth has been admitted by the respondents themselves in the service record of deceased employee.
In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for continuation of family pension in accordance with rules on the basis of records of Government employee and not on the basis of matriculation certificate.
In view of the above discussion, the O.A. is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the family pension as well as arrears of family pension along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.