Entitlement to Family Pension - The entitlement to family pension from the date of the mother's death was upheld by the court, based on the implementation of the judgment by the respondents.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 40242/2023 (for delay)

This is an application filed by the respondents seeking condonation delay in filing the counter affidavit.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 174 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 80/2023

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated August 24, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application being O.A.No.695/2019 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has disposed of the OA by stating as under:

"11. In view of the above mentioned, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of issue of this order. It is also made clear that the family pension granted within the period as directed, will be only effective from the date of grant of such family pension without any arrears. However, in case, the respondents fail to grant family pension within three months from the date of issue of this order, they will be liable to pay interest @ 9% for any subsequent delayed payment. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. The only ground of challenge to the impugned order by the petitioner is that, he is entitled to the grant of family pension from the date when his mother (wife of the deceased employee) had expired, with interest.

3. The submission of Mr. B.K. Berera, learned counsel for the petitioner is, though the Tribunal has allowed the OA and granted the pension prospectively, the impugned order has denied the grant of family pension from the date when petitioner's mother had expired.

4. According to Mr. Berera, the petitioner's entitlement to the family pension has not been contested by the respondents and pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the respondents are paying family pension to the petitioner.

5. His submission is that, immediately after the death of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner had submitted an affidavit to the respondent on June 3, 2014, pursuant to which the respondents have called upon the petitioner to undergo the medical examination at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. The Medical Board vide letter dated November 25/26, 2016 addressed to the Deputy Director, Horticulture, CPWD, certified that the petitioner is suffering from physical impairment of 82% and that he can only perform desk jobs. Mr. Berera submits, doing the Desk Job is also not possible as his 82% disability severely impacts his ability to walk on his own legs and he has to use crutches under both the arms and it is not possible for him to go out without the help of an accompanying person.

6. It is his submission that, even after the certification by the Board, the respondents had not granted the family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in OA No.695/2019, seeking the following prayers:

"(a) to direct the respondents to sanction and grant family pension to the applicant who is a case of locomotor disabled and has 90% permanent locomotor impairment in relation to his both lower limbs from the date his mother expired with interest;

(b) Any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit under the present facts and circumstances of the case."

7. The Tribunal while accepting the prayer of the petitioner has granted the family pension but only prospectively. According to Mr. Berera, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner to inform the respondents about the demise of his mother. In terms of the rules and instructions a disabled son like the petitioner is entitled to family pension, which in fact has not been contested by the respondents.

8. In that sense, there is no reason for the Tribunal not to grant the family pension retrospectively i.e., from the date his mother who was getting family pension had expired.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would justi