O.A.No. 621/09. Case: 1. A. Sreeja, 2. A. Soumini Vs 1. Accounts Officer(Estt), O/o General Manager Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kannur, 2. Communication Accounts Officer, O/o Controller of Communications Accounts, Department of Telecommunications, Trivandrum, 3. Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Trivandrum, 4. Union of India, Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Communications and It, Government of India, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A.No. 621/09 |
| Counsel | P. K. Madhusoodhanan |
| Judges | K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Service Laws |
| Judgement Date | November 26, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
The applicants are unmarried daughters of late Shri C. Kanaran, retired Line Inspector, Phones, Department of Telecom,Thalassery, who died on 29.3.1990. The mother of the applicants who was drawing family pension expired on 24.9.2006. The first applicant who is disabled due to Epilepsy submitted representation on 19.1.07 along with disability certificate for grant of family pension (Annexure A-2). She was asked to produce duly filled form No. 14 with all documents, guardianship certificate from a legal court, all certificates in original, etc. (Annexure A-3). She submitted all documents except the Guardianship Certificate (Annexure A4). She was served with the letter dated 7.3.2008 to surrender both halves of PPO dated 12.12.1988. Accordingly she submitted the documents requested for. However, she was served with A-6 letter to obtain revised form 14 etc. and certificate from the competent authority that other eligible children below 25 years have ceased to be eligible to receive family pension, and that no disabled child is to receive family pension. Even though all documents requested for were made available, she was not granted family pension. As the first applicant was not granted family pension, the second applicant submitted representation on 26.6.08 (Annexure A-9) for family pension along with a consent letter from the 1st applicant(A-10) which was rejected by Annexure A-11 stating that family pension to the 1st applicant will be released as and when guardianship certificate is produced. She was asked to submit Form 21 which relates to minor children whereas the 1st applicant is a major. The 1st applicant caused a Lawyer notice on 18.3.2009 (A-14) to which the 1st respondent issued A-15 reiterating production of legal guardianship certificate. As the matter was getting delayed the applicants filed this O.A. for a declaration that the 1st applicant is eligible and entitled to get family pension for life,to set aside A-13 and A-15 and for grant of family pension to the applicants and to constitute re-survey District Disability Assessment Board and examine the applicant and to disburse the family pension. The grounds urged are that (i)the insistence of Guardianship Certificate is contrary to rules, she is a major suffering from disability due to epilepsy-C-psychoses so as to render her unable to earn a living, the DOP&PW OM dated 30.3.89 stipulates that physically...
To continue reading
Request your trial