Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 62 (HP)

VIDYA SAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-03-30

J.L.NEGI, JASBIR S.DHALIWAL

body2000
ORDER (oral) (Delivered by Honble Mr. Jasbir S.Dhalilwal, J.M.):-Applicant Shri Vidya Sagar, son of Late Shri Chander Gupta Rai has filed the present O.A. in this Tribunal. His pleaded case is that Sh.Chander Gupta Rai was an employee of the respondents and retired in June 1949. He was receipient of pension from the respondents and continued so receiving it till the date of his death i.e. 9.2.1975. Under the earlier schemes of pension when the applicant had retired, there was no provision though the Government notified Schemes for Family Pension in 1950 and 1964 and thereafter CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 were enacted and enforced, yet the case of widow of Late Sh. Chander Gupta Rai did not fall under those Schemes. He pleads that it is for the first time that (through the Annexure-P/3, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel & Training issued a circular dated 10.7.1985 extending the benefits of Family Pension to families of Government employees who retired or died before 1.1.1964 or were otherwise not covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. This was done by the Govt. in implementation of a judgment given by the Honble Supreme Court. 2. Mother of the present applicant, namely Satya Wati, being widow 1 of Sh. Chander Gupta Rai, became entitled to family pension under this circular. She, however, did not receive any family pension from the respondents and died on 25.10.1987. Applicant, coming to know about the circular (Annexure-P/3) filed a representation in the year 19951 (Annexure-P/7) on which Respondent No.2 asked him to furnish certain documents through Annexure-P/8. He pleads that the relevant documents had already been submitted to the respondents but the same were re-B submitted alongwith letter dated 13.5.1996(Annexure-P/9). Respondent! No.2 further required the applicant to submit copy of the PPO of Late Sh. Chander Gupta Rai (Annexure-P/10). Applicant replied that he had sent the PPO of his expired father earlier alongwith Annexure-P/8. Respondent however, advised him that they shall not entertain him personally but he may furnish every detail when asked for by the concerned department He sent further replies (Annexures-P/10 and P/11), dated : 6.12.1996. Thereafter he wrote further letters (Annexures P-12 and P-13) and! Respondent No.2 also wrote a letter to Respondent No.3 which were followed by further representation by the applicant on 12.5.1997 (Annexure-P/14), but without any reply. 3. Thereafter he wrote further letters (Annexures P-12 and P-13) and! Respondent No.2 also wrote a letter to Respondent No.3 which were followed by further representation by the applicant on 12.5.1997 (Annexure-P/14), but without any reply. 3. Applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of Family Pension for the period 22.9.77 up to 25.10.1987 to which his mother was entitled to, alongwith interest and costs. 4. Respondent No.3, the office of the Accountant General in their separate reply have pleaded that Family Pension under the circular dated 18.6.1985 is available, but that office is nothing to do with it. It has, however, been admitted that deceased Sh. Chander Gupta Rai, father of the applicant, was holder of PPO No.533/Central and there was an authority letter dated 19.2.1951 issued by the office of the Accountant General (C&R) as he was to receive his pension in Himachal Pradesh. Copy of the relevant record has been placed on the file as Annexure R-1 showing the deceased having been recorded as a pensioner with that office. Further pleads that Family Pension, if any, is payable by Respondents 1 & 2. 5. Respondents 1 & 2 have filed a separate written reply mentioning that the present applicant submitted his application for the first time on 16.11.1995. They admit that it was through a circular issued in 1985 that benefit of Family Pension was extended to persons who retired prior to 1.1.1964. They admit that widow of Late Sh. Chander Gupta Rai died in October 1987. They have taken an objection that applicant has failed to produced the PPO as in his first application he had mentioned that the PPO was lost as they had felt that there was no utility of the same. They further plead that A.G. office through its letter dated 12.5.1997 does not clarify or support as to whether the deceased retired from Govt. of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi. The applicant is required to satisfy the employer by producing all the relevant record and to the entire satisfaction of the competent Authority that he is a bonafide claimant. They further plead that it is not possible for them to trace out 49 years old record relating to the deceased father of the applicant. The applicant is required to satisfy the employer by producing all the relevant record and to the entire satisfaction of the competent Authority that he is a bonafide claimant. They further plead that it is not possible for them to trace out 49 years old record relating to the deceased father of the applicant. They, however, have no objection for payment of life-time arrears provided that instructions laid down in Circular of 1985 are satisfied with regard to the fulfillment of requirements thereunder. The said respondents have also pleaded that the O.A. is not maintainable on account of act, conduct, omission, commission, acquiesance, delay and laches on the part of the applicant. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant. 6. We have heard Ld. counsel on both sides and have examined the material on the record. 7. From the pleadings of the respondents, particularly Respondent No.3, it becomes clear that Chander Gupta Rai was holder of a PPO bearing No.533/Central. On examination of Annexure-R/1, placed on record by Respondent No.3, further confirms this and also indicates that he had retired from service of the Central Government. Reply of Respondents 1 &2 on this aspect is evasive where they claim that it is the applicant who must produce all the relevant documents. They have taken an omnibus defence of record being not traceable without, apparently, having made any effort to verify that such and such person as Late Sh. Chander Gupta Rai did exist and had rendered service throughout his life and thereafter was a pensioner under a definite PPO No. which has been given to them by the office of the Accountant General. In these circumstances, we cannot appreciate the stand taken by Respondents 1 & 2 and are inclined to accept the plea of the applicant, supported by pleadings of Respondent No.3 that Sh.Chander Gupta Rai was a pensioner having retired in the year 1949 and who had.kept receiving his pension up to 9.2.1975. 8. On the objection of delay and laches, it is the common case of the parties that before issuance of Circular (Annexure-P/3) in the year 1985, persons who had retired before 1.1.1964 or their dependents and had not subscribed to a Pension Scheme, were not entitled to Family Pension. It is for the first time that the benefit of Family Pension was extended to the widow/son/daughter of the deceased Govt. It is for the first time that the benefit of Family Pension was extended to the widow/son/daughter of the deceased Govt. servants through OM dated 18.6.1985, circulated through letter dated 10.7.1985. Widow of the deceased and the present applicant as well, possibly could not have known about the existence of this circular as nothing has been shown to | us that this was either brought to their notice or could have come to their knowledge on any day earlier to the date mentioned by the applicant. On J filing of representations by the applicant, the respondent department has been exchanging letters with him asking for information which was relevant under Annexure P-3, giving him a hope that the rightful dues, receivable by his mother may be given to him. Considering the facts of the present case, we are inclined to condone the delay, if any, in this case and entertain the O.A. for its adjudication on merits. 9. After entering into correspondence with the applicant and getting the relevant documents from him, the respondents have failed to take any final decision. On the given facts, the respondents could not dispute the right of widow of Chander Gupta Rai, the deceased Govt. servant, to receive pension under Circular (Annexure -P/3) though she was not aware of this 4 circulars and died without reaping the fruits of the same. That, however, cannot negate the rights which had come into existence and to which the applicant has succeeded under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. These rights are tangible rights and not imaginary or hypothetical. All that I is required is that applicant should be able to satisfy the competent authority that should be able to satisfy the competent authority that he is the son of Smt. Satya Wati, widow of deceased Govt. servant, late Sh.Chander Gupta Rai. The right to sue by the widow continued from the date of issuance of circular Annexure-P/3 till her death and it has been inherited by the applicant and, thus, the present O.A. is maintainable. We find absolutely nothing from the facts of this case which may estop the applicant from filing the O.A. by his act, conduct, omission or commission, as mentioned by the respondents. We find absolutely nothing from the facts of this case which may estop the applicant from filing the O.A. by his act, conduct, omission or commission, as mentioned by the respondents. We, however, do not dispute the right of respondents as required under Para 9 of the circular(Annexure-P/3) to satisfy themselves regarding the identity and genuineness of the person concerned to receive such benefits. 10. The objection about non-production of original PPO in this case by the applicant, in our opinion, could not be made a ground to deny the original dues to the claimant as Respondent No.2 has given sufficient information about the PPO number (being 533/Central) and the existence of Sh.Chander Gupta Rai as the recipient of pension under it. The language used in Para 9 is "production of relevant documents via. the PPO of the late Govt. servant wherever is possible"(emphasis supplied). In the present case we hold that the respondents should proceed by accepting that the said PPO did exist and Late Sh.Chander Gupta Rai was the pensioner. 11. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the present O.A. with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the claim of the applicant by examining the case of the applicant sympathetically after, however, satisfying themselves about the relationship of the applicant with Smt. Satya Wati, widow of the deceased Govt. servant and after doing that, they should make payment of the amount of Family Pension payable to the widow of said Sh. Chander Gupta Rai, to the applicant. The legal heir of Sh.Chander Gupta Rai is entitled to receive the benefits of Family Pension for the period 22.9.1977 to 25.10.1987. The respondents shall take a final decision as aforesaid and make payment within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy or this order. Applicant will be given interest at the rate as payable under the Pension Rules on the amounts found due for the period mentioned above. There is, however, no order as to costs.