Pending civil disputes do not justify withholding pension benefits from a legally nominated recipient.

………..Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. Jana, Counsel Mr. P. Ghosh, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. A. Bag, Counsel O R D E R Hon’ble Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“a) To issue direction upon the respondent authorities to release family pension with interest in favour of the applicant forthwith.

b) To issue further direction(s) upon the respondent authorities to take urgent appropriate action including to consider the representation dated 13/04/2022 and to release the family pension in favour of the applicant along with the interest applicable forthwith.

c) To issue any other order/orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

d) To produce Connected Departmental Record at the time of hearing.”

2.

For the sake of clarity, facts in the case, as narrated by the applicant, are delineated and discussed hereinunder :-

The applicant is the wife of a deceased Railway employee who died in harness on 12.11.2021. The applicant’s representations for payment of death- cum-retiral dues on account of her husband’s death did not elicit any response from the authorities. Hence, this OA.

Respondents in their reply to the OA have submitted that they have not disbursed the retirement benefits of the deceased employee as one Dolly Nath has filed a Civil Suit claiming to be the second wife and mother of a son from the deceased employee. The suit is pending in the Civil Court.

3.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have admitted that the deceased employee had himself nominated the applicant to receive his DCRG and PF amounts. Respondents had even paid the applicant, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, funeral expenses for performing her husband’s last rites thus recognizing her as the legally wedded wife.

3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that filing a Civil Suit without obtaining any injunction against the applicant does not authorize the respondents to withhold her legitimate due as she is the legally wedded wife and the nominee of the deceased employee.

3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that it is apparent from the copy of the letter of the petitioner in the Civil Suit that she has herself admitted that she is not entitled to retiral dues as she is the second wife of the deceased employee.

3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the said Dolly Nath has filed the Civil Suit with mischievous intent. She has not pursued the Civil Suit in right earnest indicating that her only motive is to harass the applicant by delaying payment of legitimate dues to the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that in the absence of any injunction granted by the Civil Court, mere pendency of the Suit cannot be a lawful reason for withholding the retiral dues of the deceased employee from the applicant .

4.

Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it is correct that as per official records, the applicant and her son Kunal Nath constitute the family of the deceased employee who nominated the applicant and her son, Kunal Nath as his wife and son respectively, in the DCRG, CGIS and PF nomination form on 10.01.2006. Even the Railway Passes were availed by the deceased employee for the applicant and her son respectively. However, the respondents were constrained to withhold the death-cum-

retirement benefits of the deceased employee as they have received a representation from one Dolly Nath claiming death benefits for her son, Rahul Nath. Thereafter, the respondents received a letter from Dolly Nath’s advocate requesting the respondents not to disburse the retirement benefits of the deceased employee