Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Tatipudi Annapurnamma Rama ... vs South Central Railway on 26 February, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION No.22025 OF 2020

ORDER:-


      This    writ   petition    is   filed   under    Article   226    of    the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

         "......pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one
  in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents

No.1 to 3 on representation made on 06.01.2020 for not granting the secondary family pension to the petitioner even after obtaining the decree and judgment from competent Civil Court by declaring the petitioner as the dependant widow daughter of the deceased-pensioner, as illegal, arbitrary violation of Article 14,16 and 300-A of constitution of India, principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent officials to pay the secondary family pension to the petitioner regularly and to pass such other order or orders ....."

The petitioner is the daughter of Setikam Satyanarayana and

Ch. Sannayamma. The petitioner's mother Ch.Sannayamma, D/o

Challa Venkata Rao worked as Special Track Woman in the

Engineering Department at SSE/PWN/BZA/BZA. As per the

Service certificate issued by the Senior Personal Officer, South

Central Railway, Vijayawada, the said Sannayamma had been in

service from 24.05.1986/10.04.1979 to 31.07.2003 and retired on

superannuation. The said Setikam Satyanarayana and

Ch.Sannayamma during their wedlock blessed with four children,

two sons i.e., (1) Setikam Tata Rao (2) Setikam Gurumurthy and

two daughters i.,e (1) Tatipudi Annapurnamma @ Rama Lakshmi

i.e., the petitioner herein and (2) Allampalli Durga. After

retirement of this petitioner's mother-Ch Sannayamma, she got

service pension and died on 15.12.2013. Till the death of her

mother, the petitioner is the dependant and took shelter with her

mother, as she had no means. Presently the petitioner is not able

to meet her livelihood due to lack of earning potential. Being the

legal heir and dependant of the said Sannayamma, immediately

after her death, the petitioner submitted a representation to the

respondent authorities for grant of secondary family pension as

dependent widow-daughter of the deceased-pensioner i.e., her

mother-Ch.Sannyamma along with an affidavit of the other

children.

Originally the petitioner's name was Ramalakshmi, but at

the time of her marriage, her name was changed as

Annapurnamma. The Tahsildar, Vijayawada, Urban, issued a

certificate stating that Tatipudi Annapurnamma and Ramalakshmi

are one and the same. Apart from the documents submitted by

the petitioner, the respondent No.3 without considering the

documents submitted by her mother-Ch Sannayamma during her

life time regarding details of family members, travel concession

application, medical card etc., and without verifying the records,

denied secondary family pension to this petitioner.

The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.1483 of 2009 on the

file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for declaration

of this petitioner as dependant daughter of late Sannayamma, who

was an employee in the respondent department and the same was

decreed in her favour on 18.11.2019, as under:

"declaring this petitioner as daughter of the deceased- Sannayamma, she is widow and dependent on the deceased, who is retired employee of the respondent department. The respondent is further directed to consider the application of the petitioner for granting of secondary family pension in respect of her mother i.e., deceased Ch.Sannayamma, as per the rules in force.".

Despite submitting representation along with the

documents, the respondent authority did not consider the request

of this petitioner and did not sanction secondary family pension to

her being the widowed daughter of late Sannayamma and

requested to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and issue a

direction as stated supra.

During hearing, Sri Gangisetti Uma Sankar, learned counsel

for the petitioner vehemently contended that the inaction of the

respondent is illegal, and despite declaration by the competent

Civil Court, though this petitioner is dependant, legal heir of the

deceased Sannayamma, failure to grant secondary family pension

to this petitioner is a serious illegality and requested to issue a

direction.

This Court raised an objection as to maintainability of the

writ petition in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals

Act 1985 (for short "the Act"). But the counsel Sri G. Uma Sankar

conveniently avoid answer to query raised by this Court and went

on argue the matter without any stop.

The deceased Sannayamma retired from Railways and died

as a pensioner. Section 14 of the Act, deals with jurisdictional

powers and authority of the Central Administrative tribunal.

According to Section 14 of the Act :

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts, in relation to--

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian;

(b) all service matters concerning--

(i) a member of any All-India Service; or

(ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or

(iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c)] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government;

(c )all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iii) of clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government or any local or other authority or any corporation [or society] or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment. [Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to "Union" in this sub-section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations [or societies] owned or controlled by Government, not being a local or other authority or corporation [or society] controlled or owned by a State Government: Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations [or societies].

(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation 40 [or society], all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts; in relation to ....

(a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation [or society]; and

(b) all service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1)] appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation [or society] and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs.

Therefore, the Railway department falls within the purview of

Central Administrative Tribunal as Sannayamma was holding civil

post. But the dispute relating to non-payment of secondary family

pension is relating to a Railway department and therefore the

Central Administrative Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction as the

respondent was holding civil post in Central services.

Section 14 of the Act vests the jurisdiction on the Tribunal,

the powers and authority exercised by the Courts is statutory and

thereby the question of entertaining any writ petition by this Court

and question of issuing any direction to the respondent -railways

while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India does not arise when a statutory tribunal is constituted for