Smt Renu Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking determination and release of family pension along with arrears and interest. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Smt. Renu Srivastava, has filed the present Original Application seeking a direction to the respondents to determine and release her family pension and pay the arrears from October 2014, along with interest. The applicant is the widow of Late Ajay Kumar Srivastava, who was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) in the Postal Department in 1982. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Postman in 2012 and, after completing the prescribed training, was promoted to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS). However, he died on 04.06.2012 while serving at the Head Post Office, Varanasi Cantt. Following his death, the applicant was sanctioned provisional family pension with effect from 05.06.2012, and she also received certain amounts under the Postal Life Insurance policies. The family pension was paid to her up to October 2014, after which the payment was stopped without prior notice. Despite making inquiries and submitting the required documents, the applicant could not get her family pension restored. The respondents subsequently informed her that the relevant medical certificate and other service records of her deceased husband were not available. Aggrieved by the stoppage of family pension, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the legally entitled widow of the deceased employee and had been receiving provisional family pension regularly until October 2014. The payment was stopped on the ground that certain medical certificates and service records of her deceased husband were not available, despite the fact that he had served in the Postal Department for several years and had completed the prescribed formalities for promotion. It was further submitted that the applicant had made repeated efforts to obtain the relevant documents and had submitted the available records to the concerned authorities, but her grievance remained unresolved. Learned counsel contended that the respondents cannot deny the applicant her legitimate family pension merely because the department has failed to trace or maintain the relevant service records. It was also submitted that family pension is a right and not a bounty, and its arbitrary stoppage has caused serious financial hardship to the applicant, who is an elderly widow. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the respondents be directed to restore and release her family pension and pay the arrears from October 2014, along with interest.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the husband of the applicant, Late Ajay Kumar Srivastava, had worked as a GDS Packer before being promoted to the post of MTS at Varanasi Cantt. He joined the post of MTS on 09.05.2012 after completing the prescribed training. However, he died on 04.06.2012, after serving in the MTS post for only 27 days. It was further submitted that the process of opening his PRAN account under the National Pension System could not be completed before his death. The respondents stated that provisional family pension was sanctioned to the applicant on compassionate grounds, but its payment was subsequently stopped on the instructions of the competent authority. According to the respondents, the medical certificate of the deceased employee was necessary for finalising the family pension claim under Rule 54(2)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the concerned offices had reported that the requisite medical certificate was not available. Therefore, the respondents contended that the applicant’s family pension could not be finalised in the absence of the required certificate and prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

In the counter reply, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant’s family pension claim had been examined by the concerned authorities, and the matter was referred to the General Manager (Finance), U.P. Circle, Lucknow, for necessary action. It was stated that the concerned offices had reported the non-availability of the medical certificate of the deceased employee and that the applicant had also been asked to provide the requisite documents. The respondents further submitted that, under Rule 54(2)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the medical certificate was necessary for finalisation of the pension claim, particularly because the deceased employee had served in the MTS post for less than one year. They denied that the action taken by the department was arbitrary or illegal and maintained that the family pension had been stopped in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. On these grounds, the respondents opposed the relief sought by the applicant and prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.

In the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the averments made in the Original Application and denied the contrary submissions made in the counter reply. It was submitted that the respondents cannot deny family pension merely on the ground that the medical certificate of the deceased employee is not available, particularly when the applicant cannot be expected to produce such a certificate after his death and the relevant records are required to be maintained by the department. Learned counsel further submitted that the stoppage of family pension was arbitrary and illegal and that the respondents had failed to address the main issue raised by the applicant. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the Original Application be allowed and the respondents be directed to release the applicant’s family pension along with arrears from October 2014.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Rule 54(2)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, under the heading “Family Pension, 1964”, and submitted that the said provision deals with the entitlement to family pension where a Government servant dies before completing one year of continuous service, subject to the condition that he was medically examined and declared fit for Government service by the appropriate medical authority immediately before his appointment.

I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully examined the pleadings, documents and other material available on record.

The main issue for consideration is whether the applicant’s claim for family pension can be rejected on the ground that the medical certificate and certain service records of her deceased husband are not available. It is not disputed that Late Ajay Kumar Srivastava had served in the Postal Department as a GDS before his promotion to the post of MTS and died on 04.06.2012, after joining the MTS post on 09.05.2012. It is also evident from the pleadings that provisional family pension was sanctioned to the applicant and was paid up to October 2014. These circumstances require consideration while examining the reasons for discontinuation of the pension and the applicant’s entitlement under the applicable rules.

The respondents have opposed the claim on the grounds that the deceased employee served in the MTS post for only 27 days, his PRAN account could not be opened before his death, and the requisite medical certificate was not available. However, these grounds need to be examined in the light of the deceased employee’s previous service as a GDS, his subsequent promotion to the post of MTS, the relevant service records and the applicable pension rules. The non-availability of the medical certificate or other departmental records cannot, by itself, conclude the matter without proper examination of the applicant’s claim in accordance with the applicable rules.

It is relevant to refer to Rule 54(2)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, under the heading “Family Pension, 1964”. The relevant provision reads as follows:-

A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the grant of family pension where a Government servant dies before completing one year of continuous service is subject to the prescribed condition regarding medical examination and fitness for Government service immediately before appointment. In the present case, the respondents have relied upon the non-availability of the medical certificate of the deceased employee. However, the deceased employee had initially joined the Postal Department as a GDS in 1982 and was subsequently promoted to the post of MTS in 2012 under the departmental quota, in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. His previous service from 1982 up to his promotion to the post of MTS is, therefore, a relevant consideration. It is also the respondents’ case that provisional family pension at the rate of ₹3,500/- per month plus Dearness Allowance was sanctioned to the applicant with effect from 05.06.2012. The objection regarding non-availability of the medical certificate, as referred to in the departmental correspondence dated 23.07.2019, requires consideration in the light of the available service records and the earlier sanction of provisional family pension. The applicant cannot be expected to produce a medical certificate that is not available in the departmental records, and the consequences of such non-availability cannot be placed upon the deceased employee’s widow without proper examination of the matter.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to reconsider the applicant’s claim for family pension and arrears thereof, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in the light of the deceased employee’s past service, the earlier sanction of provisional family pension and the applicable rules. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.