UNION OF INDIA Vs. BEGUM BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners/Union of India and its officers being aggrieved by the order dated 20,11,2008 passed by a Division Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. Jabalpur in O.A. No. 319/2008 directing grant of family pension to Sheikh Rarnjan Khan S/o deceased Abbas Khan on the ground that he is mentally challenged, has come to this Court submitting that he order passed by the Tribunal is patently illegal.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that one Abbas Khan working as Machine Operator with the Petitioners died on 20.6.2001. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Jattun Bee, widow of the deceased Abbas Khan. Said Jattun Bee died on 31.1.2002. After her death, Ramjan Khan, a minor son of Abbas Khan and Jattun Bee, made an application for grant of family pension. The application was accordingly allowed. However, after Ramjan Khan attained the age of 25 years Ramjan Khan S/o Abbas Khan made an application for grant of family pension on the ground that he was mentally challenged and was therefore entitled to the family pension under Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules. Alongwith the application, he had filed the medical certificate issued by Civil Surgeon-cum-Superintendent of the Government Hospital, Hoshangabad. The Petitioners, however, vide their order dated 25/31.3.2008 informed the Petitioners that as per the rule/provisions since Ramjan Khan was married he would not be entitled to family pension. The Respondent/wife as guardian of Ramjan Khan came to the Central Administrative. Tribunal with a submission that the order passed by the present Petitioners was patently illegal and was running contrary to Rule 54. It appears that the present Petitioners appeared before the Tribunal and submitted that in light of office circular dated 5.3.1998 (Annexure-P/5) and yet another office circular dated 21.7.1999 (Annexure-P/6), the Respondent would not be entitled to family pension. The Tribunal, however, after referring to the provisions contained in Section 54 and the relevant provisions came to the conclusion that a person who is mentally derailed or is unable to look after his own interest even he is married, he would be entitled to family pension. The Petitioners being aggrieved of the said order are before us.