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.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The Union of India and its functionaries have filed this writ petition challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 17.12.2021 passed in O.A. No. 260/00438 of 2020 under Annexure-1, as well as the order dated 19.05.2022 passed in M.A. No.260/00197 of 2022 under Annexure-2 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that, the father of the opposite party, who was working as a Daftari under the petitioners, retired from Government service on 31.08.1992. He was extended with the pension under PPO No. 328009200310 and he passed away on 20.05.2008. His wife had already expired on 05.02.1992. The deceased employee had not included the name of the opposite party as the disabled child in the PPO. Therefore, the opposite party was not paid the family pension. He filed an application claiming the benefit of family pension. Though there were many discrepancies in the application, the same having been complied with subsequently, he was extended with the benefit of family pension with effect from 31.01.2020. But the opposite party claimed that he is entitled to get such benefit from 21.05.2008, i.e. the next day after the death of the original pensioner, namely, Late Bansidhar Mohapatra. The same having been denied to him, he filed O.A. No. 260/00438 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, claiming the benefit of family pension with effect from 21.05.2008, i.e., the date next to the date of death of his father. The Tribunal, vide order dated 17.12.2021, came to hold that in view of Sub-rules (10-B) as well as (19) of Rule-54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the opposite party is entitled to get family pension from the very next day of death of his father and accordingly directed that the same shall be paid to the opposite party from that date with arrears within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the opposite party will be entitled to get 6% interest on the delayed payment, which shall be recoverable and paid to the opposite party from the officers concerned, who shall be responsible for such further delay.

2.1 The petitioners filed M.A. No. 260/00197 of 2022 seeking extension of three months time either to implement the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 260/00438 of 2020 or to challenge the same in higher court of law, as the petitioners need to take advice from Nodal Ministries in that regard. The said M.A. was disposed of vide order dated 19.05.2022, holding that the order dated 17.12.2021 passed by this Tribunal in the O.A. is crystal clear and unambiguous to the extent that the opposite party is entitled to get family pension from the very next day of death of his father, which the petitioners were directed to pay him with arrears within a period of 90 days. Since the period of 90 days was likely to be expired by mid March, 2022 and the petitioners had come up with the M.A. seeking extension of time to implement the order and as about two months time had elapsed by that time since filing of the M.A., looking at the precarious condition of the opposite party, being a handicapped person, further one month time was granted to the petitioners to implement the order and, as such, the tribunal did not feel inclined to modify the order passed in the O