Dismissed

Union of India and Others v. Smt. Nankee

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2019WRIA/34251/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that allowed a railway employee's widow to claim family pension under the extended Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The court held the Tribunal's order did not call for interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit and the Tribunal's order did not call for interference.

Union of India and Others Vs Smt. Nankee — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34251 of 2012

¶4

Petitioner :- Union Of India And Others Respondent :- Smt. Nankee Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Gaur,Navaneet Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Dave, Alok Kumar Dave

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Navaneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Alok Kumar Dave, learned counsel for respondent.

¶7

This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 26.04.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No. 369 of 2006 filed by respondent Smt. Nankee widow of late Sri Munoo for grant of family pension, which has been allowed by the Tribunal. Operative part of the order reads as under :

¶8

“Looking at all the facts and circumstances the case of the applicant is remanded back to the respondents for the purpose of granting of family pension to the applicant w.e.f. the date on which the scheme is implemented. In effect her case has to be switched from ex-gratia payment to family pension scheme. Her entitlements may be calculated and the net amount after deducting the amount which have already been paid be given to her. The respondents are given 04 months time to comply with the order of this Tribunal from the date a copy of this order is produced before them. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No cost.”

¶9

Family pension was sought to be claimed under Family Pension Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme' 1964) as extended in 1965. Counsel for petitioner sought to argue that it is applicable only to those who have retired/died before 01.01.1964 but Tribunal has found another clause that the employees who are not covered by Scheme, 1964 for Railway employees, even in those cases aforesaid Scheme was allowed. We find that the Scheme, 1964 was initially implemented with effect from 02.01.1964 to the following;

¶10

“(a) a Railway servant who entered in the Railway service in a pensionable establishment on or after the Ist January, 1964; and

¶11

(b) a Railway servant who was in service on the 31^st December, 1963

¶12

¶13

and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway employees, 1964 contained in this Ministry's letter No. F(P)63.PN-1/40, dated 2.1.1964 as in force immediately before the issue of this order.

¶14

The said Scheme, 1964 was challenged by those who were not covered by it on the ground that it creates two classes and it is arbitrary. The matter came up before Supreme Court and vide order dated 30^th April, 1985, it held that benefit of Scheme, 1964 should be extended with effect from 22.09.1977 to the families of those Railway servants who were/are borne on pensionable establishments and are not presently covered by that Scheme, namely families of those Railway employees who retired/died before 31.12.1968 and of those who were alive on 31.12.1963 but who opted out of Scheme, 1964, pursuant whereto aforesaid Scheme was extended by Railway vide notification dated 26.07.1985.

¶15

Tribunal, therefore, has found that benefit of family pension was extended to family of employees who retired or died before 01.01.1964 or are otherwise not covered by Scheme for Railway employee.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶17

Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 26.04.2012 passed by Tribunal in Original Application No. 369 of 2006 does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶18

The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

Order Date 2.12.2019 Prajapati/-

Union of India and Others v. Smt. Nankee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Others v. Smt. Nankee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Kumar Vs Regional Transport Authority Bareilly and Another

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt.Gargi Devi Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Others

Union of India Thru Defence Secy. and Others Vs Ashok Kumar and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Madan Homeopathy Doctor Vs Union of India Thru Secy. of Rly. and Others