* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing & Order: January 19, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 6615/2014 & CM APPL. Nos.15734-35/2014
UNION OF INDIA .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sameer Agarwal, Advocate
versus
MEENA KUMARI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anand Nandan & Mr. D.S.
Mishra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
% ORDER
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL No. 15735/2014 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6615/2014 & CM No. 15734/2015 (Stay)
1. In the present Writ Petition the challenge is to order dated 30.08.2013 whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') has disposed of the Original Application (in short 'OA') bearing No.366/2012 filed by the respondents.
W.P.(C) 6615/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned CAT has directed the petitioner to pay the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.7.68 lacs to the family of the deceased employee without appreciating the fact that the total amount of the terminal benefits which had accumulated in favour of the deceased- employee, after giving adjustment to the outstanding dues, were Rs. - 25,479/-. Thus, after giving adjustment to those dues, nothing remains payable to his legal heirs. He further submits that so far as the pensionary benefits of the deceased- employee is concerned, the petitioner has no issue as the same were payable to the rightful legal heirs of the deceased- employee.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties.
4. In the present case respondent No.1 here is the divorced wife of the deceased-employee, Mr. Mahesh Kumar, while respondent No.2 is the child born out of the wedlock of the deceased-employee and respondent No.1 and thus she is not entitled to the family pension The deceased- employee had nominated his mother as his nominee to receive the terminal benefits. However, as per the settled law, the family pension is to be apportioned between the mother of the deceased- employee and his W.P.(C) 6615/2014 Page 2 of 4 son equally. The son being minor, his next friend will be eligible to get 50% of the apportioned amount till the period under which minor is legally entitled to get it.
5. In the present case, since respondent No.1 is a mother and natural guardian of respondent No.2, she will be eligible to receive the terminal benefits in her capacity as a guardian of respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from respondent No.1, submits that she has no objection, if the petitioner pays the terminal benefits in favour of respondent No.2 but under the guardianship of respondent No.1. Thus so far as the amount payable to respondent No.2 is concerned, the same shall be paid in the favour of respondent No.1 in her capacity as a guardian of respondent No.2.
6. The parties are not at lis apropos the family pension, therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay the family pension in favour of the legal heirs as per the applicable rules within a period of two months from the date of this order alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. The dues outstanding on the loan or otherwise, if any, against the deceased-employee, shall be adjusted towards the amount of terminal benefits and if after adjustment any amount is left payable then the same shall be paid by the petitioner to W.P.(C) 6615/2014 Page 3 of 4 the legal heirs of the deceased-employee within a period of two months.
7. With the above directions, the present writ petition along with all pending applications stand disposed of.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J I.S.MEHTA, J JANUARY 19, 2015 v W.P.(C) 6615/2014 Page 4 of 4