ANGURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.4.2004 (Annexure P-3) as well as order dated 18.5.2004 (Annexure P-5), whereby claim of the petitioner for family pension on account of the death of her late son Sh. Suresh Kumar, was declined by the respondent authorities. Notice of motion having been issued, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents and petitioner filed her replication.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pension scheme issued vide communication dated 3.2.2000 (Annexure P-6), petitioner being the dependent parent was very much entitled for the family pension after the remarriage by Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar. He further submits that late Sh. Suresh Kumar son of the petitioner was serving in the C.R.P.F. and died on 24.5.2000. Initially, Smt. Babli Devi, who was widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar was paid family pension with effect from 25.5.2000, but Smt. Babli Devi remarried and because of that reason her family pension was stopped with effect from 22.2.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner would next contend that after the remarriage by the widow Smt. Babli Devi and stoppage of her family pension with effect from 22.2.2002, nobody else except the petitioner, being dependent mother of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, came forward for claiming family pension. Petitioner also got succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction vide order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-2), which was also not in dispute. Order passed by the learned civil court vide Annexure P-2 also shows that the above said Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar was respondent No. 2 before the civil court and she filed the reply supporting the case of the petitioner stating that she had no objection, if the succession certificate is issued in favour of the petitioner only. Accordingly, order dated 1.3.2004 (Annexure P-2) was passed by the learned civil court issuing the succession certificate in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under these circumstances, passing of impugned orders Annexures P-3 and P-5, was result of a misconceived approach adopted by the authorities, because the claim of the petitioner was duly covered under the Pension Scheme Annexure P-6 dated 3.2.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that once nobody else, including the above said widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, was coming forward to claim family pension, petitioner was entitled for 100% family pension. He submits that petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that if widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar comes forward to claim half family pension, petitioner would have no objection. However, till any other dependent of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, including his above said widow namely Smt. Babli Devi comes forward and put any kind of claim for family pension, petitioner deserves to be granted 100% family pension on account of the death of her above said son late Sh. Suresh Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the averments taken in preliminary objections in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, to contend that after issuance of the succession certificate (Annexure P-2), financial benefits on account of retiral dues of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, including GPF, CGEGIS, DCRG were equally distributed amongst the family members, except Smt. Babli Devi, widow of late Sh. Suresh Kumar, because she had already relinquished her claim in this regard before the learned civil court, at the time of issuance of succession certificate vide Annexure P-2.