Delhi High Court
Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 August, 2023
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: August 7, 2023
+ W.P.(C) 80/2023, CM APPL. 40242/2023
MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.K. Berera, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, CGSC with
Mr. Aditya Vikram Debala and
Ms. Pushplata Singh, Advs. with
Mr. Neeraj Verma, UDC for
Horticulture / CPWD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 40242/2023 (for delay)
This is an application filed by the respondents seeking
condonation delay in filing the counter affidavit.
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 174 days
in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. The application is disposed
of.
W.P.(C) 80/2023
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated
August 24, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 1
Signing Date:10.08.2023
19:43:00
Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal', for short) in Original
Application being O.A.No.695/2019 ('OA', for short) whereby the
Tribunal has disposed of the OA by stating as under:
"11. In view of the above mentioned, the OA is allowed.
The respondents are directed to grant family pension to
the applicant within a period of three months from the
date of issue of this order. It is also made clear that the
family pension granted within the period as directed, will
be only effective from the date of grant of such family
pension without any arrears. However, in case, the
respondents fail to grant family pension within three
months from the date of issue of this order, they will be
liable to pay interest @ 9% for any subsequent delayed
payment. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. The only ground of challenge to the impugned order by the
petitioner is that, he is entitled to the grant of family pension from
the date when his mother (wife of the deceased employee) had
expired, with interest.
3. The submission of Mr. B.K. Berera, learned counsel for the
petitioner is, though the Tribunal has allowed the OA and granted
the pension prospectively, the impugned order has denied the grant
of family pension from the date when petitioner's mother had
expired.
4. According to Mr. Berera, the petitioner's entitlement to the
family pension has not been contested by the respondents and
pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the respondents are paying
family pension to the petitioner.
5. His submission is that, immediately after the death of the
petitioner's mother, the petitioner had submitted an affidavit to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 2
Signing Date:10.08.2023
19:43:00
respondent on June 3, 2014, pursuant to which the respondents
have called upon the petitioner to undergo the medical examination
at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. The Medical Board
vide letter dated November 25/26, 2016 addressed to the Deputy
Director, Horticulture, CPWD, certified that the petitioner is
suffering from physical impairment of 82% and that he can only
perform desk jobs. Mr. Berera submits, doing the Desk Job is also
not possible as his 82% disability severely impacts his ability to
walk on his own legs and he has to use crutches under both the
arms and it is not possible for him to go out without the help of an
accompanying person.
6. It is his submission that, even after the certification by the
Board, the respondents had not granted the family pension to the
petitioner. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in OA
No.695/2019, seeking the following prayers:
"(a) to direct the respondents to sanction and grant family
pension to the applicant who is a case of locomotor
disabled and has 90% permanent locomotor impairment in
relation to his both lower limbs from the date his mother
expired with interest;
(b) Any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit
under the present facts and circumstances of the case."
7. The Tribunal while accepting the prayer of the petitioner
has granted the family pension but only prospectively. According
to Mr. Berera, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner to
inform the respondents about the demise of his mother. In terms of
the rules and instructions a disabled son like the petitioner is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 3
Signing Date:10.08.2023
19:43:00
entitled to family pension, which in fact has not been contested by
the respondents.
8. In that sense, there is no reason for the Tribunal not to
grant the family pension retrospectively i.e., from the date his
mother who was getting family pension had expired.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
would justify the order of the Tribunal. He submits that the
petitioner had not submitted his entitlement to family pension after
his mother's demise because of which the respondents had not
granted the pension to him. He also states that the Tribunal has
rightly granted the pension in the manner it did in the impugned
order.
10. At the outset, we may state that the respondents have not
challenged the impugned order. Rather, they have implemented
the same. If that be so, the question is, whether the petitioner is
entitled to the pension from the date his mother had expired. The
answer has to be in affirmative. The plea of Mr. Berera, that, the
Board had opined that the petitioner can do Desk Job and as such
he is not entitled to pension has no merit for the reason, the
respondents have implemented the Judgment and are paying
pension to the petitioner. So in that sense, they accept the
entitlement of the petitioner to pension instead of Desk Job.
11. Accordingly, we allow the present writ petition and direct
the grant of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. the date when his
mother has expired. The same shall be paid with interest at 7% per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 4
Signing Date:10.08.2023
19:43:00
annum. The order shall be complied within a period of three
months from today.
12. The petition is disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
AUGUST 07, 2023/aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 5
Signing Date:10.08.2023
19:43:00
