PADMABATI MITRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, is the widow of an employee of Geological Survey of India, Eastern Region who was posted at Rangpo Drilling Camp, Sikkim as Camp-in-Charge at the relevant time. The said employee, namely, the husband of the petitioner met with a motor accident on 18th October, 1982 along with other employees while returning from Darjeeling. The vehicle in question belonged to the department namely, Geological Survey of India Ltd.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid motor accident, the husband of the petitioner and some other persons died in spot. The respondent authorities, thereafter, sanctioned family pension to the petitioner under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from 19th October 1982. The petitioner also filed a motor accident claim case demanding payment of compensation and insurance amount. The said motor accident claim case was registered as MACC Case No. 34 of 1985 and 35 of 1985. After final disposal of the motor accident claim case the petitioner herein was awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- and furthermore, Rs.15, 000/- was awarded towards insurance claim. The son of the petitioner was also given appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent authorities due to the aforesaid sudden death of her husband while he was in service. Although, the petitioner herein was allowed to enjoy family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the said petitioner claimed family pension under CCS (Extraordinary) Rules, 1939, since the husband of the petitioner died on account of the motor accident while he was on duty. Undisputedly, correspondences were exchanged between the petitioner and the respondents authorities in connection with the aforesaid demand of the petitioner for payment of the family pension under CCS (Extraordinary) Rules, 1939. No decision was however, communicated to the petitioner with regard to his aforesaid claim. The said petitioner ultimately, came to know about the rejection of her aforesaid claim by the minister of mines from the letter written by the said minister to a member of the Parliament explaining the reasons for granting normal family pension to the said petitioner instead of the family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939.

(3.) Challenging the aforesaid decision, petitioner herein filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal by the judgment and order dated 26th April, 2010 finally disposed of the said application filed by the petitioner herein being no. OA 452 of 2009 whereby and whereunder, the said learned Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid claim for disbursement of family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 upon taking note of the observations specifically made in the said judgment by the learned tribunal. The learned Tribunal, however, held that the communication between the Hon ble Minister and the Hon ble Member of the Parliament cannot be regarded as the official decision of the competent authority in respect of the claim of the petitioner for disbursement of family pension under CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939.