Administrative authorities cannot indefinitely withhold the disbursement of terminal death benefits based on unverified rival claims if the rival claimant fails to diligently establish their claim or provide necessary documentation within a reasonable period.

ORDER

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal.

(b) Direct the respondents to immediately draw and disburse 50% family pension to the applicant illegally withheld by them from the date family pension payable and also to release the 1/3rd gratuity to the applicant and her son Lohitakshay in equal shares and

(c) Further direct the respondents to release if any other amounts are withheld on account of death benefit of late Krishna.

(d) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA.”

Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant married Shri S.Krishna on 05.02.2003 while he was in Government service and he had submitted family particulars to the office in the proper proforma. The couple was blessed with a son, Lohitakshay, born on 26.02.2004. The names of the applicant as Wife and Lohitakshay, son were added in the CGHS Card issued to the husband of the applicant. Shri S.Krishna died in harness on 29.02.2012 while working as Multi Tasking Staff in the office of the 2nd Respondent. Subsequent to death of her husband, the applicant submitted a letter dated 09.03.2012 to the 3rd Respondent praying for settlement of death benefits to her. In reply, the 3rd Respondent vide letter dated 14.03.2012 conveyed that Shri S.Krishna had not made any nomination for death-cum-retirement gratuity and in terms of Rule 50 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in the event of an employee not submitting nomination, gratuity is payable to the wife including judicially separated wife, sons and unmarried daughters. The applicant was asked to confirm the members of the family. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a letter dated 19.03.2012 to the 3rd Respondent requesting to credit her husband’s terminal benefits to her bank account. Since no action was taken, the applicant submitted another letter dated 03.07.2012, which was followed up with another letter dated 05.11.2012. In response to her letter dated 05.11.2012, the 3rd Respondent informed the applicant on 20.11.2012 that the matter regarding grant of family pension and death gratuity has been referred to PCDA (P), Allahabad and action will be initiated on receipt of clarification from the said authority. Repeated representations were made by the applicant, in March, 2014, the Principal Control of Defence Accounts (Pensions) Allahabad issued two Pension Payment Orders with 1/3rd gratuity paid to the applicant and another 1/3rd to her son and further reminder of 1/3rd gratuity has been retained with the Government and 50% pension was granted to the applicant and balance 50% has been retained by the Government.

On consideration of the application submitted by the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment, an appointment order was issued to the applicant to the post of Auditor, since then the applicant is working in the office of the 3rd Respondent and at present holding the post of Senior Auditor. During the exchange of correspondence with respect to the payment of reminder gratuity and pension, the 3rd Respondent had sent a copy of the letter dated 15.05.2013 which was addressed to one Mrs.Santha, guardian of Ms.Divyashree. On further inquiries, it was learnt that one Ms.Divyashree had approached the 3rd Respondent through her guardian one Mrs.Santha claiming that Ms.Divyashree was daughter of late Shri S.Krishna and accordingly she is entitled for her share of death benefits and for compassionate appointment. On the directions issued by the Department to submit the school documents showing the correct names of her parents for processing of her case further, it appears that Ms.Divyashree did not approach the office again even after a decade has passed, now