AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Shri Ashutosh Sharma, counsel for the applicant and Shri M.P. Mishra, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 and seeking further direction to consider her case for compassionate appointment being legal heir and legally wedded wife of Late Arjun Singh Yadav. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): -
“ (i). an order or direction be issued calling for the records and to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2021 issued by the respondent no.3;
(ii). an order or direction be issued directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant within a period to be determined by the Hon'ble Tribunal;
(iii). to issue such other and further orders/direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case which the applicant is found entitled to, and
(iv). to award cost in favour of the applicant.”
The facts of the case as per the applicant, in brief, are that the applicant’s marriage was solemnized on 28.05.2013 with the deceased employee Late Arjun Singh Yadav. He was working with the respondents as Labour and his PS No. was 8934. Late Arjun Singh Yadav died in harness on 12.03.2018 leaving behind his wife and mother. The applicant is claiming that her name was entered in all records in the department as well as personal records i.e. Aadhar Card, Ration Card, Caste Certificate and Domicile Certificate etc., which have been filed along with this O.A. Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has completed her Graduation in the year 2011 and now aged about 32 years and eligible for consideration to appointment on compassionate ground. However, her case was not considered and the respondents vide letter dated 23.08.2018 directed the applicant to produce the succession certificate for payment of D.C.R.G. as well as for compassionate appointment as Late Arjun Singh Yadav has not mentioned her name in the service record/ nomination. Counsel for the applicant submitted that subsequently family member certificate as well as succession certificate issued by the competent Civil Court was obtained and the same was produced before the respondents’ authority for considering her case again. The succession certificate issued by the competent Court i.e. Civil Judge Junior Division, City Kanpur Nagar dated 14.08.2019 is on record which has been issued with regard to payment of C.G.E.I.S. Thereafter, again objection was raised by the respondents department that the succession certificate cannot be accepted as the mother of deceased employee namely Smt. Phoolmati Devi was not made party, therefore, produce another certificate. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no dispute with regard to legal status of applicant as a wedded wife of the deceased employee Arjun Singh Yadav as no objection has been raised by any of the parties. Moreover, if the applicant is the widow of deceased employee, in such a situation, the family pension as well as compassionate appointment cannot be denied only on the basis that there is no nomination. He submitted that the nomination is only certificate for the purpose of payment of dues and in this regard, the succession certificate has been obtained. However, for the purpose of family pension and compassionate appointment, the statutory rule of the respondents’ department itself says that the wife is first entitled for getting consideration for pension or for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the respondents’ department cannot take plea and reject the claim of applicant for compassionate appointment as well as family pension only on the ground that there is no nomination in the service record of deceased employee Arjun Singh Yadav.
Per contra, Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicant has earlier approached this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 260/2021, which was disposed of vide Order dated 19.07.2021 for taking decision on the representation of applicant. Thereafter, in compliance of the Order of this Tribunal, the representation of applicant was duly considered in accordance with rules. They have further admitted the fact regarding receiving the succession certificate as well as family member certificate issued by the competent court. However, denying the right of applicant only on the ground that Late Arjun Singh Yadav has not mentioned the name of Arishi Devi as wife/family member/nominee, therefore, she was directed to produce the succession certificate. They further pleaded that the mother of deceased employee Late Arjun Singh Yadav is also claiming the payment of D.C.R.G. etc. Therefore, in view of such situation, they are asked to produce the succession certificate issued by the competent court. Counsel for the respondents further pleaded that the case of applicant was considered for compassionate appointment sympathetically, however, on account of non-entry in the service record as a wife/family member/nominee, her case was not further proceeded with and accordingly, rejected.
Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is revealed that the department is governed by CCS Rules being a unit of Ministry of Defence and there is no dispute raised with regard to marriage of the applicant with Late Arjun Singh Yadav. As per family member register, only two legal heirs are left behind i.e. mother namely Smt. Phoolmati Devi and the wife namely Smt. Arishi Devi. Further, from the record related to residence certificate, Ration Card, Aadhar Card, O.B.C. certificate annexed along with the O.A., establishes the fact that Smt. Arishi Devi is the wife of deceased Arjun Singh Yadav. Moreover, the statutory rule framed has defined family member as well as entitlement for compassionate appointment as well as for the purpose of receiving the D.C.R.G. and family pension etc. If such a fact is not disputed, in such an event, the respondents ought to consider the case of applicant for compassionate appointment as well as for the payment of D.C.R.G. and family pension etc. under the relevant CCS Rules and cannot deny the right of applicant merely on the basis that the applicant’s name is not mentioned as a wife/family member/nominee in the service record of deceased employee. Moreover, it is held by the various Courts/ Tribunals that the nomination is only for the purpose of providing ‘fund’ to the nominee i.e. called Post Box Rule. The statutory right of wife for the purpose of pension or compassionate appointment cannot be denied on the ground that there is no nomination in the service record.
With regard to statutory right of wife, I have gone through Rule 54 (14) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The relevant portion is quoted herein below: -
“(b)"family" in relation to a Government servant means (1) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant. 2[*] NOTE 1.- Deleted. NOTE 2.- Deleted. (ia) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery.
[ (ii) unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally; (iii) dependent parents; (iv) dependent disabled siblings (i.e. brother or sister) of a Government servant.]”
From the above rules, it is clear that there is the first right of wife in case of a male Government servant.
In this regard, I have also gone through the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jodh Singh V. Union of India and another (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 306” in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided regarding family pension after the death of a Government servant. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is quoted herein below: -
“10.Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject-matter of testamentary disposition.”
In view of above statutory rule as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment as well as D.C.R.G. and other pensionary benefits under the relevant service rules and office memorandum/circulars issued from time to time.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.02.2021 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant for compassionate appointment by placing her name before the next meeting of Circle Relaxation Committee and also for payment of due pensionary benefits. The claim for pensionary benefits shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to cost.