Shri Basant Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The applicant’s father retired on 30.11.1993 and died on 18.12.2019. In 2019, because of the applicant’s mental condition, the father applied to the respondents to include him in medical and pass facilities and filed an affidavit declaring him unmarried. The respondents then issued a family identity certificate recording him as a “mentally disabled son” and a valid dependent. This OA is filed through the legal guardian appointed by a competent court. The applicant is mentally retarded with no income and that the Pension Rules expressly provide family pension for mentally retarded children of a deceased employee. The applicant’s representation to the respondents is still undecided and prays that the OA be decided and the respondents be directed to consider and decide the representation for granting family pension.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments made in the O.A.. It is further submitted that since applicant has filed the present Original Application, the competent authority has not been able to take a final decision on his representation. The relevant facts and documents relating to the applicant's claim are required to be examined by the competent authority before taking an appropriate decision. At present there is no final order adverse to the applicant and, consequently, no cause of action has arisen for filing the present Original Application. Accordingly, the present Original Application is premature and is liable to be dismissed.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that present Original Application has been filed through the legal guardian appointed by the Competent Court. The applicant is a mentally retarded person and has no source of income. It was further submitted that the Pension Rules provide for grant of family pension to a mentally retarded child of a deceased employee. Since the representation submitted by the applicant is still pending, learned counsel prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with rules.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to paragraph No. 37 of the counter affidavit, submitted that the claim of the applicant, Shri Basant Kumar, is still pending consideration before the competent authority. He further referred to paragraph Nos. 42 and 46 of the counter affidavit and submitted that no final decision has yet been taken on the applicant's claim and, therefore, no cause of action has arisen at this stage.

We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties, going through the entire record, and keeping in view the reliefs claimed in the OA as well as the facts disclosed in paragraph Nos. 37, 42 and 46 of the counter affidavit, I find that the issue of family pension in respect of the applicant is pending consideration before the Competent Authority. The respondents are, therefore, directed to take a conscious decision on the matter in the light of the settled principles of law, applicable rules and guidelines, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. If the applicant has fulfilled all the requisite formalities and is found entitled to family pension, the same shall be sanctioned and released in accordance with the applicable rules.

The Original Application is accordingly disposed of to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Miscellaneous Applications are also disposed of.