Sarvjeet Singh vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Central Secretariat, New Delhi & Ors.

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Shri Yogesh Mishra as well as Shri N.L. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

By means of the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following relief:-

“(i) A writ order, or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the family pension (January 2017 to March 2022) alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the petitioner within specific period as fix by this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) A writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider the application/representation dated 27-01-2023 moved by the petitioner and take appropriate decision with regard to payment of arrears of family pension.

(iii) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Allow cost of the petition to the petitioner..”

Brief facts of the case are that father of the applicant, Late Omkar Singh, was a permanent and regular employee of respondents and had taken VRS from the post of MTS and was receiving pension of Rs.14,070/- per month. He died on 23.12.2016. The applicant submitted an application for grant of family pension along with all the required documents on 16.06.2020 and lastly an application dated 27.01.2023 was also moved stating all the facts but no action has been taken on the same till date.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant’s father, namely Shri Omkar Singh, was serving in the respondents’ department. He died on 23.12.2016. The mother of the applicant had already died before the death of the applicant’s father. There were six children of the deceased pensioner including the applicant. Out of them the four daughters were already married. Only the unmarried daughter was eligible for family pension. She was not allowed the family pension and she married in the year 2018. Thereafter, she moved an application before the competent authority to allow family pension in favour of the applicant as he was also less than 25 years and did not have any other source of income. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the Annexure No. CA-14 and CA-15 of the counter affidavit and further argued that respondents themselves processed the family pension in favour of the unmarried daughter of the deceased pensioner and after she got married, she waived her right in favour of the applicant for grant of family pension and even though all the documents have been supplied by the applicant for grant of family pension to him, no action has been taken by the department till date. Thus, it was argued that the competent authority amongst the respondents be directed to pass an order on the recommendation dated 19.07.2023 (CA-14) and the order dated 19.03.2024 (CA-15).

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that CA-15 i.e. order dated 19.03.2024 is in response to the letter dated 19.07.2023. Although no specific order regarding the prayer made by the applicant has been passed till today yet he is not entitled for family pension. Mere submission of an application by the unmarried daughter after marriage in favour of the applicant will not be sufficient to grant family pension in favour of the applicant. Thus, argued that the O.A. be dismissed at this stage itself.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

Admittedly, the applicant’s father was serving in the respondents' department. He died on 23.12.2016 and at that time he was receiving pension. He left behind five daughters and the applicant. The wife of the deceased had already died. Four daughters had already been married at the time of death of the deceased pensioner. Only the applicant and one unmarried daughter remained for consideration of grant of family pension. It is further evident from the record that the said unmarried daughter married in the year 2018. Thereafter, she moved an application in favour of the applicant for grant of family pension in his favour.

Perusal of the counter affidavit and the annexures reveal that some steps have been taken at the end of the respondents to process the prayer of the applicant but no final decision has been taken on it as would be clear from CA-14 and CA-15. In the circumstances, without entering into the merit of the case, it would be just and proper to dispose of the Original Application with the direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the prayer made by the applicant as he has supplied all the required documents to the competent authority. The competent authority amongst the respondents should pass the said reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate the same to the applicant forthwith.

The O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.