UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. ICHRAJ KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/respondent (Union of India) has impeached the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28th August, 2006, allowing the claim of the respondent/writ petitioner for family pension, in view of ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee v. The General Manager, South Central Railway & Anr.: : (2003) 1 SCC 184.

(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the issue raised are: that the respondent/writ petitioner filed the writ application claiming family pension for her husband Late Shri Abhai Singh, died in the Indo -China War in the year 1962. In response to the notice of the writ application, the appellant (UOI), resisted the claim reiterating the contents of the communication dated 10th February, 1990 wherein the claim was declined as the services in the establishment were made pensionable only w.e.f. 20th November, 1969. Since the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner died, due to an accident, on 25th December, 1962, the claim for family pension was not sustainable.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant (UOI), reiterating the stand in the reply to the writ application and grounds of the memo of appeal, emphasized that husband of the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in General Reserve Engineering Force (hereinafter referred to as 'GREF', for short) on 23rd February, 1962, who died in an accident on 25th December, 1962 while serving with 661 EMP Coy. The establishment of GREF was sanctioned temporarily by the Government of India and the department functioned purely on contract basis upto 19th November, 1969. Further, the terms and conditions of the service of the civilian persons employed in the GREF, were brought into force with effect from 20th November, 1969, wherein death/injury benefits and gratuity were to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1923', for short) or the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1939', for short). The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that since the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner died before 19th September, 1967, the claim for family pension is not sustainable. Further, the writ application suffered with the vice of delay and laches since the remedy was availed of after a lapse of an inordinate, unexplained and undue delay of 35 years from the death of her husband. According to the learned counsel for the appellant (UOI), in view of clause (12), of the terms and conditions, governing the services of members of GREF, stressed that directly recruited members of the GREF were entitled to terminal benefits, provided they completed satisfactory service for a minimum period of three years. In cases where the individuals who became entitled to such grant but died while in service in GREF or after release, before grant was actually disbursed to them; the grant would be paid to the next of kin on their behalf, provided the other conditions governing the field are fulfilled. Further, any temporary service rendered prior to 20th November, 1969 in the GREF, will count toward pension under normal rules applicable to the Civilians in Defence Services. Thus, having regard to the total period of employment, which was less than one year in the case at hand, the claim could not have been sustained and hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law.