THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.16853 of 2024

ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the order, dated 16.02.2024 passed in O.A.No.18 of 2022 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G. Trinadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Driver in Mechanical Department of the then Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway on 25.10.1945. While, he was working as Driver, he had expired on 21.05.1963, after rendering 18 years of service with the Railways.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Family Pension Scheme was introduced in the year 1964 and since the said scheme was implemented after the death of the petitioner’s husband, neither he nor the petitioner had the opportunity to opt for it. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that widows of deceased railway employees namely Smt. Poonammal and others have approached the Honourable Supreme Court seeking extension of family pension benefits. During the pendency of that case, the Government, on its own, made a statement before the Honourable Supreme Court outlining the extent to which it was willing to accept the claims of widows.

5. Pursuant to the Government’s statement and subsequent clarifications, the Honourable Supreme Court vide judgment dated 30.04.1985 in Smt. Poonamal and others v. Union of India, 1985 AIR 1196, extended the benefits of the family pension scheme, with effect from 22.09.1977 to the families of railway servants who were on a pensionable establishment but were not covered by the 1964 scheme. This included the families of those employees who retired

or died before 31.12.1963, as well as those who were alive on that date but opted out of the 1964 scheme. Following this judgment, the Railway Board has issued a letter, dated 26.07.1985, extending the Family Pension Scheme to such eligible beneficiaries.

6. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner’s husband had expired on 21.05.1963 and he has not opted for family pension scheme. In fact, there was no family pension scheme in 1963, so as to enable him to opt for family pension scheme. Therefore, under the said letter, dated 26.07.1985, the petitioner is entitled to Family Pension Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner, now aged about 89 years, was unaware of the existence of the Circular. The respondent-Railways had been paying her ex-gratia pension since 1989. When the petitioner realised that she was entitled to the Family Pension Scheme as per the Railway Board letter, dated 26.07.1985, she had submitted a representation to the respondents to extend the Family Pension Scheme. The petitioner is also willing to refund the benefits which she has received under ex- gratia scheme or in the alternative, requested the respondents to adjust the amounts towards the Family Pension Scheme and pay the remaining balance benefits to her. However, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and the same was rejected vide proceedings, dated 12.10.2021.

7. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated 12.10.2021, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.18 of 2022 and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. vide order, dated 16.02.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Honourable Supreme Court has disposed of the judgment in Smt. Poonammal’s case and in pursuance of the said judgment, the respondents have issued Senior circular, dated 09.09.1985, wherein, a decision was taken to extend the family pension in accordance with the Railway Pension Rules. The Family