Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 237 (CAL)

Padmabati Mitra v. UNION OF INDIA

2011-02-21

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT : PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. The petitioner herein, is the widow of an employee of Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region who was posted at Rangpo Drilling Camp, Sikkim as Camp-in-Charge at the relevant time. The said employee, namely, the husband of the petitioner met with a motor accident on 18th October, 1982 along with other employees while returning from Darjeeling. The vehicle in question belonged to the department namely, Geological Survey of India Ltd. In view of the aforesaid motor accident, the husband of the petitioner and some other persons died in spot. The respondent authorities, thereafter, sanctioned family pension to the petitioner under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from 19th October 1982. The petitioner also filed a motor accident claim case demanding payment of compensation and insurance amount. The said motor accident claim case was registered as MACC Case No. 34 of 1985 and 35 of 1985. After final disposal of the motor accident claim case the petitioner herein was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-and furthermore, Rs.15, 000/- was awarded towards insurance claim. The son of the petitioner was also given appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent authorities due to the aforesaid sudden death of her husband while he was in service. Although, the petitioner herein was allowed to enjoy family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the said petitioner claimed family pension under CCS (Extraordinary) Rules, 1939, since the husband of the petitioner died on account of the motor accident while he was on duty. Undisputedly, correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondents authorities in connection with the aforesaid demand of the petitioner for payment of the family pension under CCS (Extraordinary) Rules, 1939. No decision was however, communicated to the petitioner with regard to his aforesaid claim. The said petitioner ultimately, came to know about the rejection of her aforesaid claim by the minister of mines from the letter written by the said minister to a member of the Parliament explaining the reasons for granting normal family pension to the said petitioner instead of the family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. Challenging the aforesaid decision, petitioner herein filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 26th April, 2010 finally disposed of the said application filed by the petitioner herein being no. Challenging the aforesaid decision, petitioner herein filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 26th April, 2010 finally disposed of the said application filed by the petitioner herein being no. OA 452 of 2009 whereby and whereunder, the said learned Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid claim for disbursement of family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 upon taking note of the observations specifically made in the said judgment by the learned tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the communication between the Hon’ble Minister and the Hon’ble Member of the Parliament cannot be regarded as the official decision of the competent authority in respect of the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. The learned counsel of the petitioner, submits that the learned Tribunal, even after deciding the issues raised in the application in favour of the petitioner unfortunately, did not direct the respondent authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and erroneously, remanded the matter to the respondent authorities for considering the representations of the petitioner afresh. The learned counsel of the petitioner urged before this court that the Central Administrative Tribunal should not have directed the respondents to consider the representations of the said petitioner instead of issuing the specific direction to the concerned respondent to grant family pension to the said petitioner under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, specially when the said learned tribunal arrived at the specific finding that the husband of the said petitioner died in a motor accident while in service. Mrs. Kanika Banerjee, the learned Counsel representing the respondents submitted that the deceased husband of the petitioner met with an accident while he was not on duty. The learned Counsel of the respondents also submitted that the late husband of the petitioner violating the official procedures on his own, took a trip to Darjeeling on the fateful day. According to the respondents there was no justification to undertake the said journey to Darjeeling, since the late husband of the petitioner was the camp in-charge of the Rangpo Drilling Camp in Sikkim and he had no jurisdiction beyond the state of Sikkim. According to the respondents there was no justification to undertake the said journey to Darjeeling, since the late husband of the petitioner was the camp in-charge of the Rangpo Drilling Camp in Sikkim and he had no jurisdiction beyond the state of Sikkim. Therefore, according to the respondent authorities, the said trip can neither be treated as an official journey nor the said late husband can be treated as on duty on that day. Mrs. Banerjee, the learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the pension case of the petitioner was settled immediately after the death of her husband in the year 1982 and the petitioner accepted the pensionary benefits sanctioned by the respondent authorities. Mrs. Banerjee, further submitted that the respondent authorities have also extended help to the members of the deceased family by offering employment to the son of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. Mrs. Banerjee, also submitted that the spouses of the other officers who died in the said accident along with the petitioner’s late husband have also received the same pensionary benefits. According to the learned counsel of the respondents, there is no scope to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner in terms of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, after a lapse of almost 28 years. The learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the respondent authorities herein, in compliance with the direction of the learned tribunal, have already considered the representations submitted by the petitioner herein and passed an order within the stipulated time. Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel of the petitioner, however, submitted that the respondent authorities, taking the advantage of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, arrived at findings contrary to the findings of the learned Tribunal and wrongfully held that the late husband of the petitioner did not undertake any official journey and was not on official duty on the fateful day. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further submitted that the respondent authorities wrongfully and illegally denied the legitimate claims of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal, instead of issuing a mandatory direction for granting the pensionery benefit under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, remanded the matter to the respondent authorities for taking appropriate decision. Mr. Mr. Roy Chowdhury further submitted that the respondent authorities wrongfully and illegally denied the legitimate claims of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal, instead of issuing a mandatory direction for granting the pensionery benefit under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, remanded the matter to the respondent authorities for taking appropriate decision. Mr. Roy Chowdhury also submitted that the respondent authorities have no scope and or authority and or jurisdiction to ignore the specific findings of the learned Tribunal as recorded in the impugned judgment and order dated 26th April, 2010 passed in OA 452 of 2009. Mr. Roy Chowdhury submitted that when the learned Tribunal, upon considering the materials on record and specially scrutinising the evidence on record arrived at the specific finding that the late husband of the petitioner died in a motor accident while he was on duty, there was no scope for the respondent authorities herein to arrive at any contrary finding. Mr. Roy Chowdhury also submitted that the learned MAC Tribunal accepted that the late husband died in a motor accident while he was on duty and passed an award which the insurance company also accepted and did not challenge before the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, the award passed by the MAC Tribunal in MACC No. 34/1985 reached finality. The learned Tribunal upon taking note of the aforesaid specific finding of the MAC Tribunal specifically observed that the respondent authorities cannot say that on the date of the accident, the husband of the petitioner was not on duty. It has also been recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the respondents herein admitted that the husband of the petitioner died while in service. The extracts from the impugned judgment and order dated 26th April, 2010 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal are set out hereunder: “29. When the award has been passed by the MAC Tribunal, then it is certified that the husband of the applicant died in a motor accident while he was on duty. To that effect the officer had issued the certificate as also deposed before the MAC Tribunal. When there is an award of the MAC Tribunal and that has not been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, the said award in MACC 34/85 attained finality. At this stage the respondents cannot say that as on date of accident the husband of the applicant was not on duty. When there is an award of the MAC Tribunal and that has not been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, the said award in MACC 34/85 attained finality. At this stage the respondents cannot say that as on date of accident the husband of the applicant was not on duty. The respondents admitted that the husband of the applicant died while in service, on sympathetic ground the son of the deceased has been appointed on compassionate ground. The said document clearly shows that the husband of the applicant died while on duty. ” The learned counsel of the respondents argued before this court that the communication of the Hon’ble Minister to the Member of Parliament cannot be treated as official communication of any decision of the competent authority in respect of the petitioner herein and therefore, the said communication of the minister could not be challenged by the petitioner herein before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner herein specifically claimed family pension strictly in terms of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 which has not yet been sanctioned and on the contrary the Hon’ble Minister in his communication to the Hon’ble Member of Parliament categorically opined that the petitioner is entitled to receive normal pension. In view of the aforesaid opinion of the Hon’ble Minister, the petitioner herein understood that the department will not allow her claims for payment of family pension in terms of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 and, therefore, rightly filed an application before the learned Tribunal claiming the aforesaid benefit of family pension in terms of CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. The learned Tribunal refused to accept the communication between the Minister and the Hon’ble Member of Parliament as the impugned order by which the petitioner could be aggrieved but at the same time directed the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner upon taking note of the specific observation that the deceased husband of the petitioner died in accident while on duty. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also upon considering the materials and evidence on record arrived at the specific finding that the husband of the petitioner died in accident while on duty. From the records also we find that Mr. M.N. Mukherjee, Drilling Engineer (Jr.) for Director (Drilling) Drilling Division, Eastern Region, Geological Survey of India, issued a certificate and deposed before the learned Additional District Judge, Darjeeling in connection with the MAC case. From the records also we find that Mr. M.N. Mukherjee, Drilling Engineer (Jr.) for Director (Drilling) Drilling Division, Eastern Region, Geological Survey of India, issued a certificate and deposed before the learned Additional District Judge, Darjeeling in connection with the MAC case. In the said certificate Mr. Mukherjee specifically mentioned that the late husband of the petitioner expired in a motor accident while he was on duty. The said certificate is set out hereunder: “ Government of India No 133/ER/D/SKM/Driller/89 Dated:2nd June, 1989 DIRECTOR (DARJEELING) EASTERN REGION GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, Ripon Street (4th Floor) Calcutta-700 016 (TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) This is to certify that Late S.K. Mitra, Ex-Driller was drawing Rs.2242.50 in the month of September, 1982 the details of which is shown below : Pay : Rs.1200/- Merger DA – ADA : Rs.243/- + Rs.120/- D.A. : Rs.517/- C.C.A. : Rs.50/- H.R.A. : Rs.112.50 Total : Rs.2242.50 His date of birth was on 1.12.1930a and his date of superannuation would have been 30.11.1988, who expired on 18.10.82 in a motor accident at Darjeeling while he was on duty. Sd/- (M.N. Mukherjee) Drilling Engineer (Jr.) for Director (Drilling), Drilling Division, E.R., Geological Survey of India.” The authorities concerned, ignoring the specific findings of the Judicial Authority, namely, the learned Additional District Judge, Darjeeling and the learned Tribunal, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the late husband of the petitioner herein is did not die while he was on duty. The respondent authorities herein cannot ignore the specific finding of the Judicial Authority and arrive at a contrary finding. The learned Tribunal in spite of arriving at the specific finding that the husband of the petitioner died in accident while on duty should not have referred the matter back again to the respondent authorities for taking further decision instead of granting relief to the petitioner by directing the respondent authorities to sanction family pension to the said petitioner in terms of Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. For the aforementioned reasons we set aside the impugned direction passed by the learned Tribunal and also quash the decision of the respondent authorities subsequently taken pursuant to the impugned direction of the learned Tribunal. For the aforementioned reasons we set aside the impugned direction passed by the learned Tribunal and also quash the decision of the respondent authorities subsequently taken pursuant to the impugned direction of the learned Tribunal. With the aforesaid directions, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondent authorities to sanction family pension to the petitioner strictly in terms of Central Civil Service(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 with retrospective effect from the date of sanctioning normal pension to the said petitioner. The respondent authorities are further directed to make payment of the arrear dues towards the pension in terms of this order within two months from date positively and the current pension should be disbursed at the enhanced rate in terms of Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939. In the facts of the present case there will be no order as to costs.