UOI AND ORS. Vs. SANTOSH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM APPL. No. 17743/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) EXEMPTION allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

(3.) RESPONDENT is a widow of one Shri Sohan Lal Arora, who was working as Inspector of Works (IOW) Grade -III with the Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, New Delhi. Shri Sohan Lal Arora was sent on deputation to RITES and on his absorption in the said office on 20.12.1976, he was superannuated from RITES on 30.09.1995 and at that time, he was drawing pension from 20.12.1976 for the services rendered by him with Northern Railway in terms of the pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to him. Shri Sohan Lal Arora died on 02.07.2012. Upon the death of Shri Sohan Lal Arora, his wife approached the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur from which bank her husband was drawing pension, seeking family pension. She was informed by the bank vide letter dated 31.08.2012 that there was no authority for payment of family pension in PPO issued to her husband. The widow thereafter by a letter dated 14.09.2012 requested Senior DAO, Northern Railway, New Delhi to include her name in the PPO for the purpose of family pension. She enclosed copy of joint photograph with her husband, copy of passbook of bank account in her joint name. The respondent did not respond to her request which forced her again to write a letter dated 10.10.2012 enclosing further documents including copy of the Ration Card where her name was shown as the wife of Shri Sohan Lal Arora, copy of Voter's ID and copy of service record wherein it has been stated that Shri Sohan Lal Arora had opted on 13.12.1968 for liberalised Pension Rules including family pension scheme for Railway Employees 1964 in terms of Railway Board's letter dated 02.01.1964 and the pension exercised by him in service book. She also produced photocopy of will executed by her husband wherein he bequeathed the immovable property to his wife. She also produced a letter written by her husband on 09.01.1997 to the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi pointing out that in his PPO name of his wife was not shown for the purpose of family pension. He has requested the Divisional Personnel Officer to include the name of her wife for the purpose of family pension.