SANTOSH ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Applicant is the widow of Shri Sohan Lal Arora who retired from the Respondent -Railways on 20.12.1976 after he was absorbed in Rail India Technical and Economic Services Limited (RITES for short). Her grievance is that after the death of her husband, the Respondents have not been granting her the family pension.

(2.) THE brief facts: Shri Sohan Lal Arora while working as Inspector of Works (IOW for short) Grade -III with the Northern Railway, Headquarters Office, New Delhi, was sent on deputation to RITES and on his absorption in the said office with effect from 20.12.1976, he was admitted to pension as admissible under the Rules. Thereafter, he has superannuated from RITES on 30.09.1995. Shri Arora has been drawing pension from 20.12.1976 for the service rendered by him with the Northern Railway in terms of Pension Payment Order (PPO for short) No. 0176020048 issued to him dated Nil/8/1999. Later on, Shri Sohan Lal Arora died on 02.07.2012 and the Applicant approached the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur from which Shri Sohan Lal was drawing pension, to pay her the family pension. However, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, vide their letter dated 31.08.2012, informed her that there was no authority for payment of family pension in the PPO issued to her husband. They have, however, advised her to get the necessary authority from the Respondent -Railways. The Applicant, therefore, vide her letter dated 14.09.2012, requested the Sr. DAO, Northern Railway, New Delhi to include her name in the PPO for the purpose of family pension. She has also sent a copy of the joint photograph with her late husband and the copy of the Bank Pass Book in their joint name etc. As the Respondents have not responded to her aforesaid request, she again, vide her letter dated 10.10.2012, furnished copies of the joint photograph with her husband, copy of the joint bank account and other documents such as copy of the ration card where her name is shown as the wife of Shri Sohan Lal Arora, copy of the Voter s Identity Card and copy of the service record found in his papers wherein it has been stated that he 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 No. F(P) 64PNI/40 dated 2.1.1964 and option in original pasted in Service Book. She has also produced a photo copy of the Will of Shri Sohan Lal Arora wherein it has been stated that he was the absolute owner of Ground Floor Portion and measuring an area 181.67 sq. yards of property No. D -178 situated in the layout plan of Railway Board Employees Co -operative House Building Society Limited known as Anand Vihar, Delhi -110092. Further, according to the said Will, he bequeathed the said property in the name of his wife Smt. Santosh Arora (Applicant herein) so that there may not arise any dispute between his heirs, successors, assigns etc. and she will be entitled to succeed his aforesaid property in law under normal course. The Applicant has also produced a letter written by her husband way back on 09.01.2007 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 also stated that he was not aware of the Pension Rules at the time of submission of the pension papers. He, therefore, requested the Divisional Personnel Officer to include her name for the purpose of family pension.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Mrs. Meenu Mainee and the learned counsel for the Respondents Shri A.K. Srivastava. The Respondents have not disputed the fact that the Applicant is the wife of Late Shri Sohan Lal Arora who was their employee and who was in receipt of the pension for the service rendered by him with them. Applicant has produced enough documentary proof to show that she is the wife of Late Shri Sohan Lal Arora. Just because Shri Arora did not include her name in the details of family furnished to the Respondents at the time of his retirement, she does not cease to be his wife. Moreover, it is seen that Shri Sohan Lal Arora himself while he was alive has written a letter to the Respondents on 09.01.2007 stating that inadvertently he did not include his wife s name in the family details and, therefore, requested them to include her name for the purpose of family pension. The Respondents have not denied the aforesaid submission made by the Applicant in their reply. As in the case of a Government employee who has a right to receive pension, his wife has also got equal right to get the family pension. The reason given by the Respondents to deny the family pension to her that her name was not included in the PPOs issued to Shri Arora is not a valid one. At best, it could have been treated as a mistake on the part of her husband and it could have been condoned probably in view of the fact that her husband had later brought the aforesaid mistake to the notice of the Respondents. Even though the Respondents have stated that some of the documents which are more than 15 years old have been destroyed, the Original Pension Payment Order as well as the Revised Pension Payment Order issued to the Applicant s husband is still available with them as well as with the concerned bank. The Respondents themselves in their reply have admitted and aforesaid fact and quoted the Pension Payment Orders issued to Shri Arora. Therefore, it is only a matter of issuing a Corrigendum to the PPO issued to the Applicant s husband to include the authority to draw family pension to be drawn by the Applicant. As held by the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India : (1983) 1 SCC 305 that pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex gratia payment, which resonate repeatedly when matters pertaining to retiral benefits, it also includes family pension. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under: