UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUMATI PANDURANG PADAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment as the issue involved is the same. A few facts may be set out. Smt. Sumati Pandurang Padave is the widow of a deceased railway employee who may be designated as CPF employee. He resigned from the services of the Railways. Subsequent to his death, his widow applied for ex gratia payment in terms of the Office Memorandum (O. M,} dated 13th June, 1988 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare Board, Government of India, which provided for grant of ex gratia payment of families of deceased CPF retiree. The relevant portion of the said O. M. may be reproduced hereunder :

(2.) THE widow in this case, had filed Original Application No. 809/1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It may be mentioned that earlier to that this Court had taken a suo motu notice of the grievance and had entertained a petition which was numbered as suo motu Writ Petition No. 16 of 1994. The learned Tribunal in its order of 24-12-1999 on facts found that the deceased husband had worked for the railways for the period 6-5-1954 to 8-12-1975 i. e. for a period of 21 years 7 months and 2 days. At the end of the aforesaid period, applicant tendered his resignation. The case of the widow was that the scheme of voluntary retirement was not in vogue at the relevant time and as such, the deceased husband was constrained to resign. Had the scheme been available it would not have been necessary for him to resign, but he would have retired voluntarily. The submission before the Tribunal was that the resignation should be considered as one of voluntary retirement or retirement on superannuation. By the impugned order of 4th May, 2000 the learned Tribunal relying on other orders passed where other Benches had taken a view that the widow and dependent children of an ex-employee are entitled to the grant of ex gratia payment provided the employee who has resigned had put in a qualifying period of service prior to his resignation, accordingly allowed the Original Application No. 671 of 1999 which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present petition. Reliance was also placed in the case of (J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited v. State of U. P. and Ors.), A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 1808. In that judgment, the Apex Court had held that the resignation amounts to voluntary retirement and granted benefit of pension. However it may be noticed at that stage itself that the discussion was in the context of whether resignation would amount to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reliance placed therefore on that judgment by various Benches of the Tribunal was misplaced,

(3.) ON behalf of the Union of India, learned Counsel points out that the resignation and retirement are two different concepts. Retirement normally is on superannuation. It would also include other cases like retirement on ground of medical unfitness but it could never include resignation. The circular was clear that the benefit of ex gratia payment was not available to those who had resigned from service. The clarification issued thereafter on 9th March, 1989 made it equally clear that those who resigned are not entitled for ex gratia payment. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the subsequent judgment of the C. A. T. in the case of (Kashinath Jadhav v. Divisional Railway Manager), (DRM) dated 24th December, 1998. It is pointed out that the Tribunal has now taken a view that those who have resigned their widows are not entitled for ex gratia payment. The learned Tribunal held that as the subsequent circular had been issued on 13-11-1998, the circular dated 27-1-1998 will have to be read and construed in terms as clarified by late circular dated 13-11-1998, and held that in view of circular dated 13-11-1998 the person who had resigned would not be entitled to the benefit of ex gratia payment. For all the aforesaid reason, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As the widow was not represented, we asked Mr. Marne, the learned Counsel of the Court to assist the Court as amiscus curie. The learned amiscus curie had brought to our attention various orders passed by the Tribunal. It is pointed out that all those orders have been implemented by the Railways and as the Railways have accepted the orders of the Tribunal and as such should not be allowed now, on the facts of the present case, to deny the benefits to the widow. It is therefore submitted that the petition filed by the Railway should be rejected.