SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4102

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, J
Smt. Radha Giri – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 66/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yogesh Sharma
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Yadav

Mother as natural guardian may receive family pension for minor children up to Rs. 10,000 per month under de facto guardianship with indemnity bond, pending guardianship or disposal of criminal case, with welfare of the minors as the paramount consideration.

Headnote:(A) Main laws and sections relevant to the case: "Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19"; "Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 75(8)"; "Railways Pension Rules - Rule 14(i)"; "Family Pension Rules, 1964 - Rules 50(2)(6); 51(3); 51(4); 54(6)(i)"; "Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 25"; "Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956"; "Section 6(a) (read with Section 4(c))"; "Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1999 SCC 1149"; "Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao, Civil Appeal Nos. 6325-6326 offf 2015"; "G.I., M.F., Letter No. F. 29 (2)-E. V/56, dated the 11th September, 1956"; "Rule 75(8) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993"; "Section - 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985"; "Guardian duties and welfare of minor children as a paramount consideration under the cited Family Pension Rules"; "Githa Hariharan (para 18-19) and Lalitha (para 25-26) on natural guardianship and the meaning of 'after'".

(B) Key legal principles or points of law discussed: "The welfare of minor children is the issue of paramount consideration" (quoted in the analysis of guardianship and pension distribution).; "The Pension Rules do not prohibit the grant of family pension/death gratuity to the family of a Government servant who commits suicide"; "The Family Pension Rules, 1964 are exhaustive and self contained code for purpose of adjudication of the claim of family pension"; "the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child"; "the word 'after' shall have to be read to mean 'in the absence of' (temporary or otherwise) to sub-serve welfare of the child"; "there is no bar that mother of minor child cannot be released pension to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per month, subject to indemnity until guardianship is established or criminal case disposed"; "Rule 51(4) - special relaxation for payment of minor's share without guardianship certificate up to Rs. 10,000"; "balance payable on guardianship certificate; arrears payable upon attainment of age 18 or guardianship confirmation"; "CPC provisions do not bind the Tribunal; natural justice governs procedure under Section 22"; "guardianship matters can be resolved through de facto arrangements with indemnity bonds when guardianship certificates are pending"; "the court may appoint welfare measures (Welfare Inspector Railways) but not grant guardianship contrary to pleadings".

(C)

Facts of the case:
- The applicants sought quashing of an order dated 05.04.2023 that prevented release of family pension, DCRG, PF and other terminal benefits on account of a criminal case pending against the applicant who is the widow; the two minors are the children of a deceased railway employee who died in harness on 20.12.2022; the applicants contend they are natural guardians and that there is no rule prohibiting pension in such circumstances; the criminal cases include FIRs and allegations against the widow and other family members; the parties are in dispute over guardianship and custody of the minor children; no guardianship certificate was produced at the time of pension disbursement.

(D)

Findings of Court:
"This Tribunal does not have a provision for appointing a next friend, but the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does have a provision for appointing a next friend in a suit involving a minor"; "The Pension Rules do not prohibit the grant of family pension/death gratuity to the family of a Government servant who commits suicide"; "the provisions of Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 are akin to Family Pension Rules, 1964"; "Rule 50(2)(6) defines 'family' for pension purposes"; "Payment to a minor’s guardian in absence of a guardian certificate may be made up to Rs. 10,000 with an indemnity bond"; "balance becomes payable on production of guardianship certificate"; "the welfare of minor children is the paramount consideration"; "the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname and to give the child in adoption" (as relevant to guardianship and welfare, per Lalitha and related authorities); "the word 'after' shall be interpreted to sub-serve welfare, i.e., in the absence of the father"; "the guardianship mechanism may be resolved by the Guardianship Court and saving bank arrangements can be adopted for welfare until formal guardianship is established". (E)

Issues: "The main issue is how to disburse the pension and who should be the next friend, given ongoing criminal proceedings against the mother; also, whether the mother can be treated as natural guardian for the minor children and eligible for pension and terminal benefits?"; "whether there is bar under law to grant family pension where the widow is an accused in an FIR; and how to safeguard the welfare of minor children pending guardianship". (F) Ratio Decidendi (the court’s reasoning): "The Pension Rules do not prohibit the grant of family pension/death gratuity to the family of a Government servant who commits suicide" (para 6.6); "the Family Pension Rules, 1964 are exhaustive and self contained code for purpose of adjudication" (para 6.7); "the two minors are entitled to the pension on behalf of their late father; the issue is the disbursement and next friend due to ongoing dispute" (para 6.5); "Rule 50(2)(6) defines who constitutes 'family' for pension purposes" (para 6.8); "special relaxation for payment of minor's share without guardianship certificate up to Rs. 10,000; balance on guardianship certificate" (para 6.8-6.9); "the mother being the only natural guardian of the child has the right to decide the surname of the child and to give the child in adoption" (para 6.11); "the word 'after' shall have to be given a meaning which would sub-serve the welfare of the minor" (paras 25-26); "there is no bar that mother of minor child cannot be released pension to the extent of Rs. 10,000 per month, subject to indemnity until guardianship or disposal of criminal case" (para 7.1). (G)

Result: "The O.A. is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No Costs."; "The guardianship court shall decide the guardianship/custody/welfare arrangements and the disbursement of pension shall proceed in accordance with the order, with a saving bank arrangement for Rs. 10,000 per month to minor children until guardianship is established or the criminal case is disposed of" (paras 7.1-7.3). (H) Parties involved: - Applicants: a legally wedded widow and two minor children (represented by the mother).; Respondents: the employer authority and its divisions (the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway; Divisional Railway Manager; Assistant Personal Officer/Settlement, DRM's Office). (I) Dissenting opinions or alternative viewpoints: No dissenting opinion is noted in the judgment; the order is a single dicated decision of the Tribunal (no separate or concurring/dissenting judgment appears in the text provided).

Table of Content
1. introductory facts and prayer for relief (Para 2)
2. applicants' guardianship and pension entitlement arguments (Para 3)
3. respondents' allegations and disqualification grounds (Para 4)
4. court's procedural posture and consideration of pleadings (Para 5)

ORDER

By way of the present O.A. filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 5.4.2023 (Annex.A/1)m declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not releasing the family pension and other terminal benefits to the applicants is illegal, arbitrary and against the law of the land and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to grant the family pension, DCRG, PF amount and other terminal benefits with interest to the applicants inrespect of Late sh. Narender Kumar at an early date with all the consequential benefits including payment of arrears of pension with interest.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No. 1 is a legally wedded widow and applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor sons of Late Narender Kumar, who died in harness on 20.12.2022 while working as Technician –III Oil Engine under SSE/PC/STB/New Delhi in Northern Railway, Delhi Division.

2.1. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant No. 1 is seeking release of family pension in her favour. He added that applicant’s husband who was in service with the respondents unfortunately committed suicide on 20.12.2022 and, thereafter, the applicant No. 1 approached the respondents to release the family pension in her favour. However, vide communication dated 05.04.2023, the respondents have stated that there is a criminal case pending against her relating to the death of her husband and because of this they are unable to process family pension in her favour.

2.2. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that this O.A. has been preferred against the order dated 05.04.2023 and against the illegal action of the respondents by which they have not granted the family pension, DCRG, GPF amount and other dues to the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the criminal case pending against the applicant No. 1 is based upon a false complaint, which has been made by her mother in law that because of the applicant No. 1, her son, i..e., Late Narender Kumar has committed suicide. Learned counsel for the applicants added that the present case is not a case of murder or abetting the murder.

3.1. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that there is no such rule or provision in the pension rules that if some criminal complaint is pending against the widow, she is not entitled for family pension and other terminal benefits after the death of her husband and moreover, as per Rule 75(8) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, the minor children are entitled for the family pension and terminal benefits as there is nothing pending against them.

3.2. Highlighting the Hindu Minority and Guardian Act, 1956, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as per the said Act, the mother is the natural Guardian of a minor child and, therefore, in the present case, the applicant No. 1 is a natural guardian and there is no dispute to the fact that applicant No. 1 is the mother of applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who are living with her and she is bearing all their expenditures.

3.3. Placing reliance upon the decision rendered in Saraswathibai Shripad v. Shripad Vasanji , ILR 1941 Bom 455, Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) 1 SCC 840 and Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka , (1982) 2 SCC 544 , learned counsel for the applicants argued that it is not in dispute that the custody of the minor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top