ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):

“That this Hon’ble Tribunal may pleased to declare the decision of the respondent communicated in proceedings No.PES/PA00/UKR dt. 15.05.2015 and PPO No.C/Navy/10161 of 2016 dated 26.02.2016 in so far as non-inclusion of family pension in favour of the unmarried-dependent-mentally challenged sibling viz. Sri. U. Venkat Rao as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct inclusion of his name in the PPO with due eligibility and pass such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined the Naval Dockyard as Journeyman in June, 1997 and retired as Chargeman on 30.11.2015. It is submitted that the applicant is unmarried and his younger brother, Mr. U. Venkata Rao, who is a mentally challenged person, is solely dependent upon him. The said fact has been informed to the administration and it is well within the knowledge of the respondents. The applicant’s mother, Mrs. Seethayamma, and his another natural brother, Mr. U Durga Rao, had also passed away. Presently, the responsibility of taking care of his mentally challenged brother is exclusively on the shoulders of the applicant. As such, the applicant, when he retired from service, submitted application to the respondents to include the name of his unmarried mentally retarded brother for the purpose of family pension. Though his application was processed by the Respondent No.4 as per the Certificate on 01.04.2015, however, the Respondent No.2 had deleted the name of his disabled brother and issued the PPO only in the name of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant submitted a detailed Representation to the Respondent No.4 on 17.03.2015, however, vide Reply dt. 15.05.2015, the respondents declined to include the name of the disabled brother in the PPO, stating as under:

"refer to the representation of the above named individual dated Mar.2015 (copy enclosed)

It is informed that (a) Since the individual is unmarried, he has to submit the passport size photos of self only for affixing on the descriptive roll instead of joint photograph with his disable brother, which shall not be acceptable by the Pension Sanctioning Authority i.e. PCDA(P) Allahabad as per the existing Rules.

(b) Family pension is eligible for disabled siblings (i.e. brothers/sisters) of Central Govt. Servants/Pensioners as per Rule 54 (22) of CCS Pension (Rules) 1972, after demise of the pensioner on production of requisite documents. However, Form 'E' nomination form for Family Pension towards the disabled brother, Sri U. Venkata Rao has been obtained and kept for record for future reference. As per existing rules, the name of the spouse (wife/husband) will be granted FP along with retirement pension and the name of the physically handicapped child only will be notified in P.P.O. The same has been explained to the individual several times.

It is requested that the same may be informed to the individual and request him to cooperate in process of his pension claim to obtain the PPO at the time of his retirement day from PCDA, Allahabad.

It is further informed to the individual that this Office will not held responsible, if any delay occurred in process of pension claim and in obtaining PPO, due lapse of individual."

Aggrieved over the above reply dt. 15.05.2015 of the respondents, the present OA is filed. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the DoP&PW OM dt. 01.07.2013 and submitted that, family pension to disabled siblings is permissible and the name of the disabled sibling can be added to the PPO. He prayed to allow the OA.

3. After notices were issued, the respondents have not filed reply, however, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents argued the matter orally on the question of law. He submitted that, by this impugned Commun