VIDYA SAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Shri Vidya Sagar, son of Late Shri Chander Gupta Rai has filed the present O.A. in this Tribunal. His pleaded case is that Sh.Chander Gupta Rai was an employee of the respondents and retired in June 1949. He was receipient of pension from the respondents and continued so receiving it till the date of his death i.e. 9.2.1975. Under the earlier schemes of pension when the applicant had retired, there was no provision though the Government notified Schemes for Family Pension in 1950 and 1964 and thereafter CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 were enacted and enforced, yet the case of widow of Late Sh. Chander Gupta Rai did not fall under those Schemes. He pleads that it is for the first time that (through the Annexure -P/3, Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel & Training issued a circular dated 10.7.1985 extending the benefits of Family Pension to families of Government employees who retired or died before 1.1.1964 or were otherwise not covered by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. This was done by the Govt. in implementation of a judgment given by the Honble Supreme Court.

(2.) Mother of the present applicant, namely Satya Wati, being widow 1 of Sh. Chander Gupta Rai, became entitled to family pension under this circular. She, however, did not receive any family pension from the respondents and died on 25.10.1987. Applicant, coming to know about the circular (Annexure -P/3) filed a representation in the year 19951 (Annexure -P/7) on which Respondent No.2 asked him to furnish certain documents through Annexure -P/8. He pleads that the relevant documents had already been submitted to the respondents but the same were re -B submitted alongwith letter dated 13.5.1996(Annexure -P/9). Respondent! No.2 further required the applicant to submit copy of the PPO of Late Sh. Chander Gupta Rai (Annexure -P/10). Applicant replied that he had sent the PPO of his expired father earlier alongwith Annexure -P/8. Respondent however, advised him that they shall not entertain him personally but he may furnish every detail when asked for by the concerned department He sent further replies (Annexures -P/10 and P/11), dated : 6.12.1996. Thereafter he wrote further letters (Annexures P -12 and P -13) and! Respondent No.2 also wrote a letter to Respondent No.3 which were followed by further representation by the applicant on 12.5.1997 (Annexure -P/14), but without any reply.

(3.) Applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of Family Pension for the period 22.9.77 up to 25.10.1987 to which his mother was entitled to, alongwith interest and costs.