CHINNAPPAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing OA No.353/2014 claiming family pension. According to her, she is the legally wedded wife of late Raju, who retired from All India Radio while working as Safaiwala. Raju passed away on 27th of September, 1990 and thereupon family pension was disbursed to his wife Smt.Pappathi till her death on 16th of May, 1996. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed application dated 21st of July, 2010 claiming to be the wife of deceased Raju and asserted her entitlement for family pension. This claim has been negatived by the Tribunal. Calling in question the said order, this OP is filed.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and also the Assistant Solicitor General, who appeared for respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) FIRST of all, the claim made by the petitioner is highly belated and a stale one. As we have already seen, the death of the pensioner was on 27/9/90 and his wife also expired on 16/5/96. For the first time, the claim was made by the petitioner only on 21/7/10, which is nearly 14 years after the death of the wife of the deceased employee.