CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J), PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Chandini – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. family details and pension initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. claim rejection due to discrepancies. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. eligibility determined by statutory rules. (Para 19 , 23) |
| 4. family pension is a right, not transferrable. (Para 21 , 24) |
ORDER
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Factual matrix, as it reveals from record are as under;
2. Md. Sultan was working as Mate in the catering unit of E.Co.Rly at Puri.
3. While working as such, he prematurely breathed his last on 20.01.1997 leaving behind six family members (wife/widow, two married daughters, two married sons and one unmarried daughter). The applicant/Ms. Chandini is the third unmarried daughter and Mumtaz Begum/Resp. No.4 is the second married daughter, who later on became widow.
3. Consequent upon his death, family pension was sanctioned in favour of his wife/widow (Shakeena Bibi) vide PPO No. 07080014099.
4. During the lifetime of family pension holder, namely Shakeena Bibi, she submitted representation on 31.03.2018 followed by another representation dated 26.07.2021 requesting the DRM(P)/E.Co.Rly/KUR for inclusion of the name of her unmarried daughter Chandini/applicant in the PPO.
5. While the matter stood thus, f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.