Sushma Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 5895 Del

$~31
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 9379/2017 & C.M. No. 38224-226/2017
       SUSHMA SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. O.N. Sharma, Advocate with
                                       Mr. J.S. Bhadoria, Advocate.

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                               ..... Respondents
                     Through:          Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate for R-1

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
                    ORDER

% 26.10.2017

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') dismissing her original application praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents/Director General, All India Radio, Prasar Bharti to release the entire death benefits to her on the demise of her husband, late Jagvir Singh.

2. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner, with the observations that in view of the fact that late Jagvir Singh, the deceased husband of the petitioner, had filled up Form-3 on 15.7.2015, giving details of his family, as prescribed in sub- Rule 12(a)(i) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules and declaring inter alia his parents and his son Kalpit Singh, as his family members, upon his

expiry on 08.1.2016, his estranged wife, (the present petitioner) could not claim entitlement to family pension.

3. Briefly narrated, the facts of the case are that late Jagvir Singh was employed with All India Radio and had died in harness on 08.01.2016. He had got married to the petitioner on 16.06.1985 and they had two offspring from the said marriage namely, Shri Kushagra Singh and Shri Kalpit Singh. Pertinently, Mr. Kalpit Singh is physically challenged and suffers from a disability to the extent of 80%.

4. The marital relationship of the petitioner and her husband was very strained. Para-4 of the impugned judgment records that there were as many as 84 cases filed between the parties and the deceased was paying interim maintenance to his younger son, Shri Kalpit Singh @ Rs.8,000/- per month. After his demise, the petitioner had approached the respondents for claiming family pension which request was turned down on the ground that the deceased employee had given the details of his family on 15.07.2015 and in the said Form, he had mentioned only the name of his parents and his younger son.

5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for release of family pension in her favour, which prayer has been turned down by the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to family pension, inasmuch as even though the deceased and his wife had a strained relationship, she had remained his legally wedded wife and is therefore, entitled to receive the provident fund, family pension and all other benefits payable by the respondents in that capacity. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel

for the petitioner on two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Violet Issaac and Others v. Union of India and Others reported as (1991) 1 SCC 725 and Nitu v. Sheela Rani & Ors. reported as 2016 AIR (SC) 4552.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authenticity of Form-3 submitted by late Jagvir Singh to the respondents under Rule 54(12) of the CCS (Pension) Rules was questionable and the records of the respondents would have revealed that at the time of taking employment with the respondents, the deceased had furnished the details of his wife and children to his employer, which ought to be the sole basis for considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.

8. Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules that deals with the aspect of payment of family pension states in sub-Rule 12(a)(i) as follows:-

"12(a)(i) As soon as a Government servant enters Government service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office."

9. The prescribed Form-3 which the deceased had furnished to his employer on 15.07.2015 gave the details of his family, as required under the aforementioned Rule. The said Form mentions only the names of his parents and his younger son, Mr. Kalpit Singh, who is physically challenged. The deceased had however excluded the name of the petitioner and his older son, Kushagra Singh. Except for the aforesaid document, admittedly, there is no other document that the deceased had submitted to the respondents after 15.7.2015 for payment of family pension, specifying inter alia any other family members. In our view, any document that the deceased might have submitted to the respondents prior to 15.07.2015, would lose significance once he elected to fill up a fresh Form under Rule 54(12)(a)(i) of the CCS

(Pension) Rules and it is only this Form that would govern the grant of family pension.

10. On this aspect, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the contention of the petitioner, that her deceased husband had nominated her as his nominee for receiving the benefit of the provident fund would not be of any consequence. The question that had arisen for consideration in the petition filed by the petitioner was as to whether she has any legal and valid claim to receive family pension and not provident fund.

11. We see no reason to differ with the view expressed by the learned Tribunal. Quite clearly, the petitioner and her deceased husband were in bitter litigation with each other for several years. The petitioner does not deny the fact that she had a fractured marital relationship with her husband, late Jagvir Singh; nor does she deny the fact that the parties were in litigation with each other since the year 2002, and they were living separately ever since the year 2005. The fact that the petitioner has got the benefit of the provident fund dues of the deceased, having been nominated for the said purpose by her husband, would not automatically vest a right on her to claim entitlement to family pension, when the deceased had decided to exclude her and his older son from receiving the said benefit. While submitting Form-3 to his employer on 15.07.2015, furnishing inter alia, the details of his family members, the deceased had elected to keep out the petitioner and his older son and had nominated his parents and his younger offspring as the beneficiaries for purposes of payment of family pension.

12. As for the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may note that the fact situation and the legal position in both the cases is entirely different and have no application to the facts of the present case.

13. In the case of Smt. Violet Issaac (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein payment of family pension was governed by Rule 801 of the Railway Family Pension Rules, 1964. The Apex Court observed that the Rule 801 of the aforesaid Rules clearly provided that family pension shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no widow/widower, to the minor children of a Railway Servant who may have died while in service. It was observed that said Rule did not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his lifetime for the payment of family pension and in these circumstances, the court had held that only the designated persons under the Rules would be entitled to family pension. However, in the instant case, the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which admittedly govern the parties, specifically provides for a Form-3 to be filled by the employee in respect of his family members and thus the employee was free to furnish the list of his family members, while submitting his nomination form for payment of family pension. Unlike the captioned case, the CCS (Pension) Rules do not specifically designate the beneficiaries of the Pension Scheme and leave it to the discretion of the employee to fill up the form specifying his family members.

14. We have also considered the decision in the case of Nitu (supra) and find that the said decision is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was considering a situation governed by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 of the Government of Punjab wherein vide clause 4(ii) of the Scheme, the term 'family' was specifically defined. The Court found that the mother and sister of the deceased who were claiming payment of family pension, were not included in the definition of the term 'family' and in those circumstances, it was held that

they would not be entitled to family pension under the said Pension Scheme. As noticed above, the present case is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which neither defines family members for grant of family pension nor excludes the parents or the children of the deceased. On the other hand, the Rules give an option to the employee to submit a Form, specifying his family members for the purposes of grant of family pension. Thus, reliance placed by the petitioner on the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, is not of any avail.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the Rule position, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the pending applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J

REKHA PALLI, J OCTOBER 26, 2017 na/ap