Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 189 (MP)

Praveen Saxena v. Managing Director, L. I. C.

2012-02-10

N.K.MODY

body2012
ORDER 1. This is a petition for quashment of the order Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order Annexure-P/11 passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of family pension was dismissed, the present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that Late Shri K.V. Saxena was the employee of the respondent who died on 31.3.1992. After his death, family pension was being given to his widow Smt. Manorama Saxena, who submitted an application in the office of the respondents to the effect that her son Praveen is handicapped person, therefore, after her death, pension be given to the petitioner. Smt. Manorama Sexena died on 12.11.2001 and as per her wishes, notice was sent to the petitioner on 22.01.2002, whereby the petitioner was asked to furnish the documents for his entitlement for family pension as per Chapter (VI) Rule 40 (4) of the Life Insurance Company of India (Employee) Rules, 1995. In compliance of the letter dated 22.01.2002, the petitioner completed all the formalities and submitted an application which was rejected vide order Annexure-P/1, against which, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed vide order Annexure-P/11. Hence, the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner aruged at length and submits that the orders Annexure-P/1 and P/11 are illegal, incorrect and deserves to the set-aside. It is submitted that the petitioner is a handicapped by birth. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed his education upto M.Com, but the height of the petitioner is less than 3 feets. Apart from this, petitioner is handicapped by his both the legs. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner was running a PCO in the name of M/s. Sapna STD/PCO, which was also closed after her death on 5.3.2001. It is submitted that neither in the order Annexure P/1 nor in the order Annexure-P/11 any reason has been assigned for rejecting of the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/11 passed by the respondents be quashed with a short direction to the respondents to provide family pension to the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned orders Annexure-P/1 and Annexure-P/11 passed by the respondents be quashed with a short direction to the respondents to provide family pension to the petitioner. 3. Shri V.S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the word “family” is defined in clause (k) of Rule 2 of the rules, which reads as under :- (i) wife in the case of a male employee or husband in the case of a female employee; (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; (iii) son who had not attained the age of twenty five years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of 25 years including such son or daughter adopted legally [............deleted] 4. It is submitted that since the wife of the deceased Shri K.V. Saxena, was the widow, therefore, the family pension was granted to her. It is submitted that since the petitioner is son of the deceased and was more than 21 years at the time of death of Shri K.V. Saxena, therefore, right from beginning, the petitioner was not entitled for family pension. 5. It is submitted that the word “pension” is defined at page 24, which reads as under :- “Pension” includes the basic pension and the additional pension referred to in chapter VI of these rules”. 6. It is submitted that no further pension can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner was in job and was earning his livehood, therefore, also the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition be dismissed. 7. Chapter VI of the Rules deals with “family pension” and Rule 40 deals with the “period of payment of family pension”. As per sub cluase (a) of clause (1) of Rule 40, pension is payable in case of a widow or a widower, upto the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier. In the case of a son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years. As per sub cluase (a) of clause (1) of Rule 40, pension is payable in case of a widow or a widower, upto the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier. In the case of a son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years. As per proviso of Clause (1), if the son or daughter of an employee is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disable so as to render him or her unable to earn a livehood even after attaining the age of twenty-five years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the certain conditions. 8. Sub clause (iv) of Clause (1) of relevant condition for grant of pension to the son, reads as under :- “before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the Competent Authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evident by a certificate obtained from a medical officer approved by the Corporation, setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child.” 9. In the return filed by the respondents it is stated that it is not disputed that Smt. Manorama Saxena availed family pension till her death on 12.11.2001. Further more, the petitioner though handicapped but was not a non-earning member as he was running a STD/PCO in the name and style of Sapna STD/PCO, in his residential house. Petitioner is living in the immovable property left by his late father with his wife and daughter. It is further stated in the return that the petitioner is a mentally fit with robust physic and good health and is able to earn his livelihood. 10. After careful examining the orders Annexure-P/1 and Annexure P/11 and the petitioner who is persent in person, who is stunted, it prima facie appears that petitioner is not leading a normal life. However, whether he is able to get family pension or not and whether, he is able to earn his livelihood or not, these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the authorities while passing the order as the order is not a speaking order. However, whether he is able to get family pension or not and whether, he is able to earn his livelihood or not, these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the authorities while passing the order as the order is not a speaking order. What as per rules the respondents were required to consider was whether the petitioner is physically crippled so as to render him unable to earn his livelihood even after attaining the age of 25 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, order Annexure-P/11 passed by the respondent No. 1 is set aside with a direction to the appellate authority to re-decide the appeal on merits after getting the petitioner medically examined by a Doctor approved by the respondents. Petitioner shall submit the full facts to the effect how the petitioner is handicapped, academic qualification, family status, the property (movable and immovable) received by the petitioner from his parents on affidavit. After submission of an affidavit and also after obtaining the medical certificate, appellate authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal keeping in view the relevant provisions of the rules. It is made clear that while deciding the appeal, the petitioner shall remain present before the appellate authority on the date intimated to him for hearing by the appellate authority through registered post. Needful be done within four months. 11. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.