Delay and laches in claiming pension benefits can lead to dismissal of the claim, and the application of different pension rules must be in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short “CAT”) dated 25.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) dismissing the O.A.No.060/001156/2015, wherein quashing of orders dated 1.10.2015 (Annexure A-1) and 7.10.2015 (Annexure A-2) was sought.

2. Mr.Madan Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Tarsem Lal Postman (since deceased), while on official duty, suffered a fatal injury and ultimately died on 13.8.1990. Family pension was sanctioned in favour of the applicant-petitioner under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short “1972 Rules”) w.e.f. 14.8.1990. On 25.2.1992, the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground. She retired on 31.8.2009 and is drawing the regular pension, besides the family pension. A representation dated 18.3.2015 for re-fixation of the pension as per the CCS (Extra Ordinary Pension), Rules (for short “EOP Rules”) was submitted, which has been rejected vide impugned orders dated 1.10.2015 (Annexure A-1) and 7.10.2015 (Annexure A-2). By referring to the aforementioned facts, the learned counsel has raised the following legal submissions:-

(i) The order of the CAT is not sustainable in the eyes of law as delay cannot be considered to be fatal for the purpose of determining the claim of pension or re-fixation. In support of his submission, reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered in Asger Ibrahim Amin Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India; 2016 (1) RSJ 652; S.K.Mastan Bee Versus General Manager, South Central Railway and another, 2003 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 93 and Saroj Kumari Versus State of Punjab, 1998 (3) SCT 664 (Full Bench) to contend that where the claim involved is with regard to fixation of pay according to the rules and instructions, it being a recurring cause of action for an employee arising every month and, therefore, the petition should not have been dismissed as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act;

(ii) The Government of India in 1965, had issued instructions for awarding of pension under EOP Rules only in cases covered under both the pension Rules;

(iii) Where there is an error and mistake apparent on the part of the Government, it can always undo a wrong at any time and the delay would be irrelevant;

(iv) The petitioner did not know her legal rights that the family pension was available under CCS (EOP) Rules to the exclusion of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In fact, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to compute the family pension under the applicable rules. Thus, denial amounts to violation of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;

(v) Delay in filing the Original Application was neither intentional but due to ignorance, lack of assistance and lack of resources in view of the family, domestic and other social rituals.

It was, thus, urged for setting-aside the order under challenge.

3. Per contra, Mr.Namit Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 4, at the outset, submitted that the family pension of petitioner's husband was sanctioned vide order dated 23.9.1990 @ Rs.555/- per month w.e.f. 1.11.1990, i.e., 50% of the pay last drawn by the deceased under 1972 Rules by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Kapurthala. The petitioner enjoyed 50% of the last pay drawn for a period of seven years as per 1972 Rules. It was further submitted that after the expiry of seven years of the death, the family pension admissible is at par with the ordinary family pension which the retiree/deceased would have availed under the 1972 Rules. The family pension would then be calculated at uniform rate of 30% of basic pay in all cases subject to minimum of Rs.3500/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Petitioner-applicant did not point out or raise the grouse after the demise of her