Delhi High Court
Uoi And Ors. vs Santosh Arora on 1 September, 2015
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8360/2015
Date of decision : 1st September, 2015
UOI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. J. K. Singh, Standing Counsel for
Railway.
versus
SANTOSH ARORA ..... Respondent
Through :
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No. 17743/2015 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W. P. (C) 8360/2015
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.01.2015
passed by the Tribunal.
3. Respondent is a widow of one Shri Sohan Lal Arora, who was
working as Inspector of Works (IOW) Grade-III with the Northern
Railway, Headquarters Office, New Delhi. Shri Sohan Lal Arora
was sent on deputation to RITES and on his absorption in the said
office on 20.12.1976, he was superannuated from RITES on
30.09.1995 and at that time, he was drawing pension from
20.12.1976 for the services rendered by him with Northern
Railway in terms of the pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to
him. Shri Sohan Lal Arora died on 02.07.2012. Upon the death of
Shri Sohan Lal Arora, his wife approached the State Bank of
Bikaner and Jaipur from which bank her husband was drawing
pension, seeking family pension. She was informed by the bank
vide letter dated 31.08.2012 that there was no authority for
payment of family pension in PPO issued to her husband. The
widow thereafter by a letter dated 14.09.2012 requested Senior
DAO, Northern Railway, New Delhi to include her name in the
PPO for the purpose of family pension. She enclosed copy of joint
photograph with her husband, copy of passbook of bank account in
her joint name. The respondent did not respond to her request
which forced her again to write a letter dated 10.10.2012 enclosing
further documents including copy of the Ration Card where her
name was shown as the wife of Shri Sohan Lal Arora, copy of
Voter's ID and copy of service record wherein it has been stated
that Shri Sohan Lal Arora had opted on 13.12.1968 for liberalised
Pension Rules including family pension scheme for Railway
Employees 1964 in terms of Railway Board's letter dated
02.01.1964 and the pension exercised by him in service book. She
also produced photocopy of will executed by her husband wherein
he bequeathed the immovable property to his wife. She also
produced a letter written by her husband on 09.01.1997 to the
Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi
pointing out that in his PPO name of his wife was not shown for
the purpose of family pension. He has requested the Divisional
Personnel Officer to include the name of her wife for the purpose
of family pension.
4. Since, the petitioner did not favourably respond to the letters
addressed by the widow, she was forced to approach the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The OA filed by the Widow was
allowed. The petitioner herein was also directed to release the
family pension with interest @ 9%.
5. The petitioner herein is primarily aggrieved by the order by which
interest has been granted to the respondent herein. We may notice
that after the demise of her husband, the respondent approached the
petitioner by addressing two communications with supporting
documents with a request that her name be included in the PPO and
family pension be released to her. We find that the widow had
enclosed large number of documents to show that she was the
legally wedded wife of the deceased, including copy of her
passbook showing joint account, ration card, election card and
copy of service record, but the petitioner herein showed scant
regard to the plight of the widow of one of their former employees.
It is only when the widow filed an OA that the order for release of
family pension was made. We may notice that the delay in release
of pension was on account of the insensitive attitude and inaction
on the part of the petitioner and for no fault of the respondent. We
may notice that despite the order dated 29.01.2015 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, till date the pension has not been released
till date. In the case of Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank,
reported at (2013) 3 SCC 472, it has been held that in case the
delay is on account of the fault of the employee, no interest would
be payable but if the delay is on account of the lapse or inaction on
the part of the employer, the interest is liable to be paid.
Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
6. Resultantly, the petition is without any merit. Same is dismissed.
The petitioners shall release the family pension to the respondent
forthwith as the order of the Tribunal relates back to the month of
January, 2015.
CM APPL. No. 17742/2015 (Stay)
8. In view of the order passed in the Writ Petition, the application is
rendered infructuous.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2015
gr
