Smt. Sarozni vs Union Of India & Anr.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that applicant No.1 is the mother and applicant No.2 is the niece of the deceased employee Umakant Bajpai. Deceased employee joined in the respondents’ department in the year 1984 on Group ‘D’ post. The marriage of deceased employee was solemnized with respondent No.2 according to the Hindu rituals and customs on 07.05.1985. In the year 1988, respondent No.2 registered an FIR under sections 498 (A) and 323 IPC against the deceased employee along with her in-laws at PS Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. Respondent No. 2 also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar. 3^rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District Kanpur Nagar by his order dated 22.10.1997 acquitted the deceased employee and his parent. Since respondent No.2 never lived with deceased employee, Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar partly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 and directed the deceased employee to pay Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent No.2 as maintenance. Respondent No.2 has also filed application under section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar for the issuance of recovery warrants against deceased employee. On the aforesaid application of respondent No.2, the aforesaid court vide order dated 05.10.2005 directed the deceased employee to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2. Against the aforesaid order, deceased employee filed criminal revision before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High Court stayed the order of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar vide its order dated 30.10.2007. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar vide its order dated 16.11.2018 dismissed the case filed under section 127 Cr.P.C of the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed another application under section 127 Cr.P.C. against the deceased employee before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kanpur Nagar for enhancement of maintenance of Rs. 15000/- per month. Unfortunately deceased employee died on 01.02.2021 due to sudden cardiac respiratory arrest. Deceased employee had nominated applicants as his nominees in this service book. After of death of deceased employee, father of deceased employee filed a representation on 12.07.2021 before the respondents for release of death-cum-retiral benefits in favour of applicants as respondent No.2 has married to another person during lifetime of deceased employee and has one child also. In reply to the representation of the father of deceased employee, respondents denied the request of father of deceased employee vide order dated 24.01.2022, stating therein that they will only release the benefits to the applicants if they obtain a favourable decision from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. Against the aforesaid order, applicants filed the present OA before this Tribunal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondents filed counter affidavit, stating therein that deceased employee was an employee of respondent No.1 and he was married with respondent No.2. Unfortunately he died on 01.02.2021 while he was in service. In the service record, he had nominated his mother Smt. Sarozni Bajpayee for grant of all service benefits, which may be due after his retirement or death. After death of deceased employee, respondent No.2 has also filed representation for grant death-cum-retiral dues. Respondent No.2 in her representation stated that no court has decided divorce from deceased employee and she was not remarried and continued to be a widow. Official respondents stated in their counter affidavit that since respondent No.1 has received multiple claims for release of death-cum-retiral benefits, then he stated that they will release the benefits to the parties who receives the favourable court order.

In the counter affidavit, respondent No. 2 stated that since she was not divorced and has not remarried maintaining her status as a widow, she is entitled to receive the death -cum-retiral benefits. She is also entitled to get the benefit of family pension and for appointment on compassionate ground. She has also stated in her counter affidavit that she does not know any Brijesh Kumar.

Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicants have reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit.

6 We have heard Ms. S. Madhyan, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the official respondent and Shri Chandrika Prasad, learned counsel for the private respondent and perused the record.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant No.1 is the real mother of the deceased employee and applicant No.2 is the niece of the deceased employee. Deceased employee namely Umakant Bajpai died during service period on 01.02.2021 in the hospital. It is also argued that deceased employee had married with respondent No.2 but relation between deceased employee and her wife was not good. A criminal proceeding for the offence under section 498 (A) and 323 IPC was lodged by the respondent No.2 against the deceased employee and her in-laws. In Trial, deceased employee and in-laws of respondent No.2 were acquitted. Respondent No.2 had also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court, which was allowed to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of application. A petition under section 127 Cr.P.C. was also moved. Against the order of maintenance amount, criminal revision at the end of deceased employee was filed. Thus, referring to the aforesaid fact, it was further argued that respondent No. 2 was not living along with the deceased employee, due to this reason, deceased employee had made nomination in the service record in favour of the applicants for death-cum-retiral benefits. It is also argued that respondent No.2 had married with one Brijesh Kumar. She has baby child. She has relinquished her status of wife along with the deceased employee. Due to this reason, nomination was made by the deceased employee. It is further argued that a number of representations was moved before the competent authority for releasing the death-cum-retiral benefits in favour of the applicants but respondents refused the same on the ground that death cum retirement benefits will be released on submission of order passed by the Family Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that opinion formed by the respondents for not releasing the death-cum-retiral benefits is illegal and against the provision of law. Since specific nomination have been made in favour of the applicants, thus, respondents ought to have enquired the matter as has been enshrined in Rule 77 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Learned counsel for the applicants also refers to the Rules 50, 51, 53 and 54 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and further argued OA be allowed and respondents be directed to release the entire death-cum-retiral benefits in favour of the applicants.

Learned counsel for the official respondents argued that there are rival claimant for the death-cum-retiral benefits as is clear from the pleadings of the parties, therefore, respondents have rightly directed the claimants to furnish the order of the Family Court for disbursal of the retiral benefits. It is also argued that respondents have no objection in releasing the retiral benefits in favour of the persons to whom Court directs to receive the retiral benefits,

Shri Chandrika Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 argued that there is no dispute between the parties that deceased employee had married with the respondent No.2. It is true that several matrimonial/criminal cases were pending between deceased employee and respondent No.2 but at no point of time any sort of divorce took place between the deceased employee and the respondent No.2. Status of marriage between them still subsist. Respondent No.2 has not married with any other person. She does not know to Brijesh Kumar. Document filed on behalf of the applicants in support of their pleadings are forged and fake documents. Until and unless a divorce is taken place, status of the husband and wife will remain intact. It is also argued that since respondent No.2, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee is alive, family pension can only be released in her favour. Respondent No.2 cannot be denied from the family pension on the ground of nomination. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 placed reliance on the case law of Smt. Violet Issaac and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 725 and argued that respondent No.2 is the widow of deceased employee, therefore, respondents be directed to release all the death-cum-retiral benefits in her favour. It is also argued that prayer made in the OA is not liable to be allowed. Thus, OA be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and gone through the entire record carefully.

It is admitted fact between the parties that deceased employee had married with respondent No.2. Several criminal/matrimonial dispute started between them. Out of them in criminal case deceased employee was acquitted. In matrimonial dispute, maintenance was allowed in favour of the respondent No.2. No divorce has taken place between them as nothing is mentioned in the pleadings of parties on this point nor any documents to this effect has been adduced on their behalf. As would be clear from the counter affidavit of the official respondents, deceased employee has nominated in service record to the applicants for death-cum-retiral benefits. Department has not released death-cum-retiral benefits in favour of the applicants or respondent No.2. Direction has been issued on part of the respondents to the rival claimant to furnish the order of the family court.

It is pertinent to mention here that order passed in matrimonial dispute or in criminal case has no relevance with the present matter. Opinion formed by the official respondents directing the applicants and respondent No.2 to file the order passed by the Family Court then and then only the death-cum-retiral benefits will be released, is illegal and arbitrary. Rule 77 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 empowers the official respondents/competent authority to make an enquiry regarding disbursal of death-cum-retiral benefits. Which amount could be released in whose favour has also been specifically mentioned in other Rules of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 just like Rules 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54. The stand of the official respondents in my considered view is not in accordance with law. They ought to have proceeded to enquire the matter and to pass appropriate order regarding the disbursal of the death-cum-retiral benefits in favour of the right claimant.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Violet Issaac and others (supra) has clearly held that the Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons, who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive the family pension. The employee has no title nor any control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Family pension does not come under the purview of estate of the employee.

Perusal of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 it is clear that specific provision has been made regarding disbursal of the retiral cum benefits. What amount can be disbursed on the basis of nomination and what amount need no nomination for disbursal have been clearly provided in the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. In my considered opinion, official respondents/competent authority ought to have made a detail enquiry and disbursed the death-cum-retiral benefits to the entitled persons. There is no need to take shelter of court order. Family Court has no business to issue direction to the competent authority or to direct the respondents to release the death-cum-retiral benefits in the present matter.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that OA is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, OA is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 is hereby quashed. Competent Authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to make an enquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 77 read with Rules 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 of CCS Pension Rules 1972 and also taking into consideration the other relevant rules applicable to the present matter and they are also directed to disburse the death-cum-retiral benefits to the entitled persons. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.