Family pension eligibility is determined strictly by birth order among dependents, not by relinquishment rights.

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, family pension holder, Shakeena Bibi, expired on 02.08.2021.

6. Based on the letter dated 26.07.2021, on 20.12.2021 a letter was addressed by the Railway authority requiring submission of documents for consideration of inclusion of the name of the applicant as unmarried daughter in the PPO, which letter returned to the sender with postal remarks that the addressee Shakeena Bibi expired.

7. After the death of her mother, the applicant attended the office of the respondents Railway on 13.06.2023 and requested six months time to submit the required documents. Accordingly, she attended office on 10.01.2024 and submitted some documents and requested the Sr. DPO/E.Co.Rly/KUR to allow her six months time to submit the rest of the documents sought by the Railways including a joint affidavit shorn in by two sons and two daughter stating that they do not have any objection for sanction of family pension in her favour/Chandini.

8. Discrepancies having been noticed on verification of the documents so submitted by the applicant, the railway authority in letter dated 11.01.2024 intimated the Chandini/applicant to submit clarification regarding entitlement of the next eligible family member for grant of family pension.

9. Applicant submitted representation on 06.05.2024 for grant of family pension on the strength of NOC given by the next eligible family member/Resp. No.4 to get the family pension.

10. The authority cinotnecre arnliaed vide letter dated 16.05.2024 rejected her request, , stating that no such affidavit of the elder widow sister/Resp. No.4 was ever submitted by her and that, family pension cannot be sanctioned in favour of another on the basis of ‘NOC’ given by the person who is eligible to receive family pension since family pension, as per the Rules, is payable only to eligible person [unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter] in order of their date of birth.

11. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid letters dated 11.01.2024 and 16.05.2024, applicant filed this Original Application u/s. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, making her elder widowed sister as Respondent No.4, seeking to quash both the letters mentioned above and to direct the Respondents to grant family pension in her favour with effect from August, 2021 and release arrears on the strength of the RBE No. 116/2007(F(E)III/2007/PNI/5 dated 18.09.2007) wherein the Railways adopted the OM dated 06.09.2007 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension, New Delhi for extension of scope of family pension to unmarried daughters of Railway Servants/pensioners.

11. Respondent-Railways filed their counter, inter alia, stating that discrepancies having been noticed, the matter was duly enquired into and, during enquiry, it revealed that Resp. No