CHERITANGME K. MARAK Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is stated to be the only daughter/legal heir of one (L) Hebithson R. Marak, who was an employee in the Office of the District Agriculture Officer, East Garo Hills, in a Grade-VI post (Chowkidar) expired on 20/5/2016, is before this Court praying for grant of family pension in her favour.

(2.) Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who is un-married, is the adopted daughter of the deceased employee and that the date of adoption could no longer be ascertained as it happened when she was an infant. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Birth Certificate issued on 29/2/2012, the Caste Certificate issued on 21/5/2009, and also the Transfer Certificate dtd. 18/12/2008, wherein the deceased employee has been named therein, as the Father of the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that the with regard to the other terminal benefits entitled to the deceased employee, a Succession Certificate had also been granted to the petitioner, for which she received Rs.9, 49,223.00 being leave salary, GPF, and DCRG. He further submits that in respect of the family pension, for which the petitioner had made an application, the same has not been considered, inasmuch as, the respondents Nos. 7 & 8, by a Pension Payment Order dtd. 16/1/2024 had noted that there is no family pensioner, and as such no family pension is payable. The learned counsel submits that it appears that the denial for family pension is due to the fact that she had stated that she was adopted, but could not come up with any requisite documentation to substantiate this fact, before the respondents Nos. 7 & 8. He further submits that otherwise all the other documents as required, have been submitted to the said respondents. He therefore, prays that in view of the circumstances, there should be no impediment for the respondents Nos. 7 & 8, to consider for release of family pension to the petitioner.

(3.) Ms. E.B. Passah, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 7 & 8, has submitted that the said respondents are unable to release the family pension in view of the fact that under the Meghalaya Civil Service (Pension) Rules, the petitioner will not be covered even in the Second category of the said Rules, and neither has the petitioner furnished a legal adoption deed. She therefore, submits that the writ petitioner being barred by a technicality, cannot be granted the family pension.