MADHUSUDAN PATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the disabled son and legal representative of the deceased central government employee, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dtd. 25/4/2013 passed in O.A. No.538 of 2012, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has denied to grant arrear family pension to the petitioner from the date of discontinuance and held that the payment of family pension to the petitioner will be effectively regulated by the notification dtd. 27/12/2012 and O.M. dtd. 16/1/2013 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Government of India.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the Government of India Press in Santragachi, Howarah and was in receipt of pension after his retirement from service till the date of his death, i.e., 11/3/1991. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner received family pension till her death on 10/11/1999. The petitioner, being a physically handicapped suffering from congenital Nystagmus of 100% disability of visual and being the legal heir and entitled to receive family pension as per sub-rule (6) of Rule-54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1964, made representation to the authority concerned to grant family pension in his favour. His prayer was granted and he was issued with P.P.O No.42850600458 dtd. 12/5/2006. Accordingly, he received the arrears of family pension from 11/11/1999 to 31/5/2006 and was in receipt of monthly family pension thereafter. While it was so continuing, opposite party no.3-Pay & Accounts Officer, Office of Pay & Accounts (Ptg), Ministry of Urban Development, Salt Lake City, Kolkata sent a letter dtd. 29/5/2008 to opposite party no.4-Pay and Accounts Officer, Central Pension Accounting Office, New Delhi, with a copy to the petitioner, directing to stop family pension to the petitioner, who is married physically handicapped son of deceased employee (Ex-PPI of GIP (Sant).

(3.) Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that right accrues in favour of the petitioner for receiving family pension on the basis of Rule-54(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1964. As such, the benefit was extended to him after the death of his mother on 10/11/1999 and, as such, he was paid the arrears of family pension from 11/11/1999 to 31/5/2006 and was in receipt of monthly family pension thereafter. While he was being paid family pension by the authority, because of letter dtd. 29/5/2008 issued by Pay & Accounts Officer, Office of Pay & Accounts (Ptg), Ministry of Urban Development, Kolkata, the family pension granted to the petitioner was stopped without following due procedure and without complying the principle of natural justice. Therefore, owing to non-payment of family pension, as due and admissible, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No.538 of 2012. When the said O.A. was pending adjudication, in view of issuance of subsequent memorandum dtd. 16/1/2013 by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India, again the benefit of family pension was extended to the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the tribunal, vide order dtd. 25/4/2013, disallowed the arrear pensionary benefit for the period from 29/5/2008 till the memorandum issued on 16/1/2013, which he claims in this writ petition, as he is otherwise also entitled to get family pension in terms of Rule-54(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules and payment of the same was illegally stopped from 29/5/2008. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557; Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, (2004) 2 SCC 590; Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. M.A.K. Mahavidyalaya (A.P), (1987) 4 SCC 525; G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society, AIR 2010 SC 1105; S. Engineering v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785; and Capt. Subha Singh v. Lt. Governor Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 440.