AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member J
The applicant, who claims to be dependent daughter of late Shri Sakharam Kori, is aggrieved by not sanctioning family pension in her favour.
The applicant submits that her father was an employee of the respondent department, who superannuated on 30.11.1988. Father of the applicant died on 28.04.2012 leaving behind the applicant. The applicant’s mother had passed away before death of her father. After death of her father, the applicant submitted a representation for providing family pension in her favour. Since nothing was heard for a considerable period of time, the applicant filed an Origina Application No.852/2017 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.11.2017 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide her representation. However, as per order dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure A-10), the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant on the ground that her name was not mentioned by the employee as nominee. The applicant claims that out of three daughters of deceased, she is the only unmarried daughter and, therefore, entitled for family pension as per rules.
In their reply, the respondents have stated that so called father of the applicant had nominated Smt. Phool Bai as his wife and Shri Sunil Kumar Kori as son in the nomination forms filled by him at the time of retirement on 16.03.1988. One Ms. Sonu had submitted an application on 26.12.2013 stating the she is unmarried daughter of Late Sakharam and requested to pay family pension in her favour. Subsequently, another lady Somvati had also filed an application on 11.05.2016 for grant of family pension to her. Both these ladies were replied suitably that their names do not find place in the nomination form submitted by the deceased employee. Similarly, on receiving the application of the applicant for family pension, it was found that name of the applicant is not mentioned in any of the documents submitted by the deceased employee during his lifetime or at the time of retirement. The date of birth of the applicant, as mentioned by her, is 01.01.1976 and at the time of retirement of her father, she was around 13 years, which shows that the applicant was minor at that time and as per procedure, her name should have been included by the deceased employee, if she was the daughter of the deceased employee.
On 28.08.2025, when the matter was listed for final hearing, nobody had appeared for the applicant. Therefore, invoking provisions under Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the matter was heard ex-parte with liberty to the applicant to file her written submission within 15 working days, which has not been filed by her.
Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
It is true that applicant’s father did not mention her name in the family particulars furnished by him at the time of retirement on 16.03.1988 by which time applicant was around 13 years old, whereas names of Smt. Phool Bai (wife) and Shri Sunil Kumar Kori (son) have been recorded in the nomination form submitted by the deceased. There appear to be more than one claimant, who are seeking family pension on the pretext that they are the dependent daughters of late Shri Sakharam. Apparently, none of these claimants including the applicant do not figure in the nomination details furnished by the deceased employee. The applicant in this case has also not produced any documentary evidences which establish that she was dependent on her father either at the time of retirement or at the time of his death. If at all, the applicant is the unmarried daughter of late Shri Sakharam, she may approach the appropriate Court and get the succession certificate in her favour and then approach the respondent department for providing her family pension. But in the absence of any valid document, this Tribunal is not inclined to pass any order in favour of the applicant.
Accordingly, this Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.