Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 685 (GAU)

Pranita Barman v. Union of India

2008-09-11

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioners, who claim to be the daughter and son respectively of Hav. C.K. Barman (since deceased) seek the intervention of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate writ and/or direction to the Respondents to grant them family pension in terms of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereafter referred to as the 'Rules'). 2. I have heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Islam, Advocate for the Petitioners and Ms. B. Das, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 3. The pleaded facts in brief would be necessary to comprehend the cases of the parties. According to the Petitioners, their father was an employee of the Army under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He retired in the year 1991. On his death in 1993, he left behind the following heirs and legal representatives: Name Sex Age Relation 1. Smti Arati Bala Barman Female 42 Yrs. Wife(widow) 2. Miss Pratibha Barman Female 14 Yrs. Daughter 3. Miss Dipika Barman Female 11 Yrs. Daughter 4. Mrs. Pranita Barman Female 9 Yrs. Daughter 5. Sri Gautam Barman Male 9 Yrs. Son 6. Miss Rekha Barman Female 9 Yrs. Daughter Subsequent thereto, the Respondent authorities sanctioned the family pension to their mother Arati Bala Barman which she drew till the year 1996. On her remarriage, the same was stopped she having been rendered disentitled under the Rules. Their elder sister Smti. Pratibha Barman next stepped into the line in receiving the family pension. After availing the same for some time, she also became disentitled following her marriage. Their next elder sister Dipika Barman having attained 25 years of age and also married was disqualified from receiving the family pension. Ultimately their next sister, Smti Rekha Barman had also married. According to the Petitioners, therefore, in terms of the Rules, they, who are still unmarried and below 25 years of age are qualified to be released the family pension under the Rules. Together with an affidavit dated 6.6.2007 sworn before the District Magistrate, Nagaon to the said effect a representation dated 7.6.2007 in the meantime has been submitted by them before the Principal Controller, Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad for releasing the family pension to them. Together with an affidavit dated 6.6.2007 sworn before the District Magistrate, Nagaon to the said effect a representation dated 7.6.2007 in the meantime has been submitted by them before the Principal Controller, Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad for releasing the family pension to them. It is alleged that the same has not yet been acted as on date. Their reminder before the appropriate authority also failed to evoke any response. They have also referred to an Office Memorandum dated 21.7.1999 in alignment with the Rules in support of their claim. The Petitioners have prayed for judicial intervention for redress. According to them, they satisfy the requirements as mandated by Rule 54 of the Rules to be qualified for the family pension thereunder. 4. The Respondents in their counter while admitting the facts pertaining to disentitlement of the mother and the other sisters of the Petitioners have questioned the tenability of their claim for family pension on the following counts- (1) Their names do not find place in the service records of the deceased as his daughter and son. (2) There is a discrepancy in the date of birth of the Petitioners as furnished by them. (3) Their father having claimed to have undergone sterilization on 10.3.1983 for which he had been granted special increment, the Petitioners could not have been begotten by him in the normal course of things. 5. The Respondents have further denied the allegation of non disposal of the Petitioner's representation. According to them, the same had been disposed of on 9.8.2007 wherein necessary clarifications were sought for from the Petitioners with regard to their date/year of birth. The answering Respondents have maintained that the Petitioners having failed to provide the necessary information as required, their claim for family pension in the facts and circumstances of the case is wholly unsustainable. 6. Mr. Mahanta while reiterating the facts pleaded in the writ petition has emphatically urged that as the Petitioners are qualified in terms of Rule 54, their mother and the elder sisters because of their marriage being excluded from the benefits thereof, the impugned action on the part of the Respondent authorities is without any justification and therefore, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to redress their grievance. 7. Ms. 7. Ms. Das on the other hand, has submitted that as the facts bearing on the Petitioner's entitlement for the pension are neither admitted by the Respondents, nor proved by the Petitioners, their claim is misconceived and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. According to her, as disputed questions of facts are involved, this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction would not embark upon an enquiry therein. On that count as well, the claim is liable to be negated, she urged. 8. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts, I am of the view, having regard to the nature of the objection raised on behalf of the Respondents that the relief prayed for cannot be readily granted in the instant case. Though there is no wrangle at the Bar with regard to the applicability of Rule 54 of the Rules on the issue of family pension as claimed by the Petitioners, having regard to the pre conditions prescribed thereby, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the disputed facts precipitated by the rival stands of the parties, ought to be first scrutinized. As the Petitioner's claim for family pension under the Rules would be contingent on the confirmation that they are the children of the deceased and satisfy the conditions of eligibility as ordained by Rule 54 of the Rules, an enquiry into the facts bearing thereon is indispensably necessary. On the basis of the materials on record, having regard to the constraints in the scope of the scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is therefore felt appropriate in the facts and circumstances to remand the matter to the Respondents for enquiry and a fresh decision. Ordered accordingly. 9. Consequently, the Petitioners would present themselves before the Personnel Officer, 222 ABOD, C/o 99 APO on 24.09.2008. The authority abovenamed would afford them all reasonable opportunities of establshing their claim in terms of the observations made hereinabove as well as the requirements of the Rules as well as relevant executive instructions and administrative guidelines. Depending of the outcome of the process, appropriate orders would be passed. Needless to say, that the decision taken would be communicated forthwith to the Petitioners in writing. Depending of the outcome of the process, appropriate orders would be passed. Needless to say, that the decision taken would be communicated forthwith to the Petitioners in writing. The Petitioners would co-operate with the exercise as ordered and if it is done, the same would be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.