High Court Court dismissed this writ petition challenging the tribunal's order stopping family pension. The petitioner, a widowed daughter who became widowed after both parents died, was denied pension eligibility as she could not constitute a 'family' under the rules.
Writ petition dismissed against decision of Central Administrative Tribunal. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 01.09.2023
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.B.Balaji
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
S.Kalaiarasi
...Petitioner
Vs.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for records relating to the order of the third respondent made in
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
O.A.No.310/00796/2018, dated 29.06.2018 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore family pension to the petitioner with admissible interest thereon.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar Respondent-3 : Tribunal
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, Tribunal) viz., third respondent, dated 29.06.2018, in O.A.No.310/00796/2018, whereby, the petitioner's prayer for restoration of family pension to her was dismissed.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father was an railway employee (Senior Gangman) and he died in harness on 06.03.1993. Therefore, the petitioner's mother, being his legal heir, was receiving the family pension. On 23.03.1998, the petitioner's mother also died. Thereafter, the family pension, which was earlier extended to the spouse
2/7
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
(petitioner's mother) was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 04.10.2008. But, all of the sudden, the second respondent, Senior Divisional Finance
Manager, by order, dated 20.03.2018, ordered for stoppage of family pension by stating that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of family pension, as, she became widow only after her parents pre-deceased her. Challenging the said order, dated 20.03.2018, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also dismissed the Original Application. Against which,the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that as per the definition of the word 'Family' under Rule 70(5) of the Railway Pension Rules, 'Family' includes, i) wife, ii) husband, iii) sons, iv) unmarried daughters and v) widowed daughters and hence, the findings of the Tribunal in holding that the applicant (petitioner), who falls under the catergory of widowed daughter, could not become a member of a non-existent family on 03.10.2008 is incorrect. Further, the learned counsel referred to Railway Board's letter dated 16.03.2005, which states that the divorced/widowed daughters were
3/7
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
privileged to draw family pension even after crossing the age of 25 years and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive family pension as she is a widowed daughter of a deceased railway employee. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted all these aspects were not considered by the Tribunal in a proper prospective and hence, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
4. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension, only in the event she became a widowed daughter either at the time of death of father i.e. on 06.03.1993 or mother on 23.03.1998, and since she become widowed only on 03.10.2008, i.e after her parents predeceased her, she is not entitled to receive the family pension, and hence, the second respondent has rightly ordered for stoppage of family pension, which was also confirmed by the Tribunal by rightly dismissing the Original Application and the same warrants no interference in this Writ Petition.
4/7
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
5. We have heard the learned counsel for appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
6. We are in complete agreement with the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Admittedly, the petitioner became widowed daughter not at the time of death of father i.e. on 06.03.1993 or mother i.e. on 23.03.1998, but only after they pre-deceased her, i.e. on 03.10.2008. Though the petitioner has referred to sub-class v of Rule 70 (5) of the Pension Rules, which defines that word 'family' includes widowed daughters and the petitioner also took reliance on Railway Board's letter dated 16.03.2005, which states that the divorced/widowed daughters were privileged to draw family pension even after crossing the age of 25 years, the aforesaid Rule is applicable only to the daughter, who become widowed/divorced at the time of death of the railway employee, and in the present case, as already noticed above, the petitioner's father and mother died even before the petitioner became widow on 03.10.2008. Therefore, as rightly held by the Tribunal,
5/7
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
she could not become a member of a non-existent family on 03.10.2008
following her widowhood.
7. In the result, we dismiss this Writ Petition as being devoid of
merits. No costs.
D.K.K.J., P.B.B.J., 01.09.2023
sd
Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no
To
6/7
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
D.Krishnakumar,J. & P.B.Balaji,J.,
sd
W.P.No.8950 of 2019
01.09.2023
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a widowed daughter whose parents predeceased her is entitled to family pension under the Railway Pension Rules.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly dismissed the petition for restoration of family pension.
S.Kalaiarasi
Union of India rep. by The General Manager, Southern Railway
Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Tiruchirappalli Division
Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
D.Krishnakumar
P.B.Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
