PRABHATSINH DAYABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is the legal heir and holder of succession certificate in respect of the properties of Smt. Ratnaben Dayabhai Chauhan - widow of the Late Dayabhai Durlabh Chauhan, Special Grade Driver, Western Railway, Bulsar -praying for a direction to the respondents to pay the family pension with arrears and interest dues to aforesaid widow. Applicant's father died on 13.11.1980. The applicant's mother applied for pension, opting to remit the SRPF benefits to enable her to get pension under the Railways Family Pension Rules, 1964. Respondent No. 2 sent Annexure A -1 letter dated 1/3.2.1983 directing her to remit Rs. 5027.75 in order to enable her to opt for pension including the benefits of family pension. She was informed that the last date of exercising the option was 31.5.1983. In January, 1990, the applicant's mother sent Annexure A -2 representation for sanctioning the family pension stating that the deceased employee had nominated his brother as his PF nominee and that only after the death of the employee this fact had come of her notice that the nomination was not changed. She had also stated in Annexure A -2 she was advised by the Railway Administration to obtain succession certificate from Court. It took a long time for her to obtain succession certificate from Court and therefore, the stipulated time limit of 31.5.1983 for exercising the option was over. In Annexure A -2, she has prayed for treating the matter as a special case and to grant family pension. The Divisional Account Officer of the Railway vide Annexure A -3 letter dated 21.1.1990 informed the applicant's mother that her representation was forwarded to the Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railways, Mumbai Central. As nothing was heard thereafter, applicant's mother caused to issue Annexure A -4 lawyer's notice to the respondents. In response to the Annexure A -4 notice, the Senior Divisional Accountant Chief, Western Railways, Mumbai Central informed her that the sanctioning of family pension is dealt with by DRM (E) BCT and that further correspondence has to be made with DRM (E) BCT. Thereafter, the applicant's mother filed SCA No. 3813/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. During the pendency of the aforesaid SCA, the applicant's mother died on 9.3.2003. Thereafter, the applicant obtained Annexure A -6 succession certificate dated 4.3.2005 from the competent Court to enable him to receive dues payable to his deceased mother. Subsequently, Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dismissed the aforesaid SCA on the ground of jurisdiction because remedy of the applicant lay before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the applicant has come before this Tribunal with the following reliefs:

(2.) HEARD both sides. Mr. C.P. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.J. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondents were heard in details. I have carefully perused the records.

(3.) OBVIOUSLY , the claim in this case is very old. Records produced by the applicant reveal that his mother Ratnaben Dayabahi Chauhan became eligible for family pension when her husband died on 13.11.1980. However, as per the then existing policy, in order to avail of the family pension claimed for Railway employees, in 1964, the applicant's mother had to remit the Government contribution to the P.F. and other excess amounts paid from DCRG, which was estimated by the respondents to the tune of Rs. 5027.75. Apart paying the aforesaid amount, she had to exercise option for the benefits of family pension on before 31.5.1983. The records produced by the applicant further reveal that since the deceased employee had executed a nomination in favour of his own brother for receiving the retiral benefits the Railway Administration had insisted on a succession certificate issued by the Court. The applicant's mother in Annexure A -2 representation has stated all these matters and had pointed out that she could not exercise option before the stipulated date of 31.5.1983 because of the circumstance that it look a long time for her to obtain succession certificate from the Court. Although the respondents acknowledged receipt of Annexure A -2 representation vide Annexure A -3 letter, nothing was heard from the respondents for a very long time till the year 2002 when the applicant's mother caused a lawyer notice issued to the respondents calling upon them to pay the family pension due to her. The lawyer notice was also replied to by the respondents in a routine manner informing that the matter was being dealt with by the DRM(E) BCT and advising her to contact the said officer. Thereafter the applicant's mother filed a SCA No. 3813/2003 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide Annexure A -7 Judgment dated 1.8.2011 pointing out that this Tribunal is the forum to adjudicate the matter. In the meantime, the applicant's mother expired on 9.3.2003 during the pendency of the aforesaid SCA before the Hon'ble High Court. These facts remain undisputed by respondents.