Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Parthi Kumar Anthony and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, represented through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No.6652 of 2017
Decided On : 28-02-2024
(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Railway Pension Rules, 1950 - Compulsory retirement under Rule 2046 - Claim for family pension denied after 30 years - Court held that delay and laches cannot bar a legitimate claim for pension, which is a recurring cause of action. (Paras 60, 64, 66)
(B) Delay and laches - The principle of delay and laches cannot be applied to deny pensionary benefits when statutory rights are involved. (Paras 41, 58)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed by the widow of Late P.A. Das, who was compulsorily retired and subsequently went traceless. The claim for family pension was denied by the Tribunal citing delay.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the deceased was entitled to pension under Rule 102© of the Railway Pension Rules, 1950, and the claim for family pension should not be denied due to delay.
Issues: Whether the deceased was entitled to pension under the Railway Pension Rules, 1950, and whether the delay in claiming pension barred the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that pension is a right and not a bounty, and the principle of delay and laches cannot be applied to deny a legitimate claim for pension.
Result: The impugned order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release all arrears of pension and family pension.
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No.051/00051/2015 whereby and whereunder the relief as was sought for by the writ petitioner before the learned Tribunal for holding her entitled to get the benefit of family pension, has been denied to be given.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as:-
This writ petition was filed by the widow (now deceased) of Late P.A. Das Ex- regular employee of S.E. Railway & when he was posted as Electrical Driver at BNDM, CKP Division, the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, CKP issued a notice for compulsory retirement under Rule 2046 which was served to the petitioner (now deceased) as his wife in absence of her husband which the petitioner acknowledged on 13.01.1986 in presence of witnesses.
3. After the notice dated 13.01.1986, an office order dated 10.02.1986 was issued by the DPO/CKP whereby and whereunder the husband of the petitioner (deceased widow) was ordered for compulsory retirement on attaining his age of 55 years w.e.f. 13.04.1986.
4. In that compulsory retirement order, the details of the service of her husband was mentioned and it was also specifically mentioned that Sri P.A.Das, Electric Driver, BNDM compulsorily retired after due notice served to the wife of Sri Das on 13.01.1986.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband was traceless just after the order of his compulsory retirement and despite of her best efforts she failed to trace out her husband.
6. The petitioner also informed the same immediately to the Railway authorities concerned and made request to pay her retiral dues payable to her husband but when no action was taken on her request, Pleader’s notice dated 08.04.1986, was sent to the Railway authorities for payment of her legal dues.
7. After receiving the pleader's notice dated 08.04.1986, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer sent a letter dated 16/27.09.1994 in the name of the wife of Sri P.A. Das, namely, this petitioner, wherein this petitioner was requested to furnish Court's order to establish the claim for payment of retiral dues of husband of the petitioner.
8. Thereafter, one letter dated 25.10.99 was issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Chakradharpur wherein with a view to settle court cases amicably to the extent possible, the petitioner was directed to meet Sr. D.P.O/DPO for hearing on the matter of her claim, which she did but no order was passed.
9. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application dated 25.10.2010 to the DRM/CKP for payment of her family pension but no effect. She filed several representations before the authorities, i.e., representation dated 04.10.2014, 20.08.2014, 25.10.2014 stating specifically that her husband P.A. Das is no more and accordingly requested to pay her the family pension including the arrears of pension and all other death cum retiral dues of her deceased husband but no response was received.
10. Having failed to get any order from the authorities concerned, the petitioner again made a representation dated 26.11.2014 through Speed Posts before the DRM stating specifically that consequence upon the death of her husband namely Late Paul Anthony Das, Ex- Electrical Driver/ RSO/BNDM, she is entitled for the family pension and others legal dues which are still due.
11. It is the further case of the petitioner that when no response was given to her last representation dated 26.11.2014, having no alternative moved before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application being O.A. No.05/00051/20151 for redressal her grievance.
12. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the said original application vide order dated 21st April 2017 holding that the claim of
Pension is a statutory right, and claims for pension cannot be denied based on delay, as it constitutes a recurring cause of action.
The right to receive family pension under statutory provisions is in the nature of property and cannot be denied without due process of law. Administrative actions affecting parties must adhere to pr....
Voluntary retirement acceptance precedes entitlement to family pension based on qualifying service; firm acknowledgment of the right to pension as a constitutional right.
The court affirmed the entitlement of a married disabled child to family pension from the date specified in an Office Memorandum, irrespective of procedural discrepancies in application.
Family pension is included in the definition of pension under the Judges Act, entitling the spouse of a retired Chairperson to claim it.
The court established that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the substantive rights of illiterate individuals in claiming family pensions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
