O.A No. 296 / 2008. Case: 1. A. Vijayalakshmi, 2. K. S. Ragi Vs 1. Union of India, General Manager, Chennai, 2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Palghat, 3. Divisional Finance Manager, Palghat, 4. R. Rani, 5. Sindhu. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A No. 296 / 2008 |
| Counsel | Tc Govindaswamy, Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sreedevi Kylasnath |
| Judges | George Paracken (Judicial Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | April 22, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
George Paracken (Judicial Member) (At Ernakulam Bench)
The 1st applicant herein is the second widow of late Shri K. B. Shashankan who died while in service on 25.9.1991 and the 2nd applicant is the daughter of the 1st applicant. The 4th respondent is the 1st wife of late Shri K.B.Shashankan and the 5th respondent is their daughter. The 4th respondent was the recipient of the family pension after the demise of Shri Shashankan. She also got the appointment as a Gangwoman with the Railways on compassionate grounds. When she got re-married on 20.8.1999, the official respondents stopped the payment of family pension to her and started paying to the 5th respondent till 13.6.2007 i.e. when the claim of the 2nd applicant for 50% of the family pension was allowed. The relief sought in this O.A is to declare that the 2nd applicant is entitled to grant 50% of family pension with effect from 20.8.1999 i.e. the date of re-marriage of the 4th respondent and also to direct the respondents to pay the 2nd applicant the arrears of 50% of family pension for the period from 20.8.1999 to 13.6.2007 with interest at 12% per annum.
2. The 1st and 2nd applicants had earlier filed O.A.40/2001 before this Tribunal, but it was dismissed mainly on the ground that the 4th respondent was not impleaded as a party in the array of respondents. Though the applicants have challenged the aforesaid order of this Tribunal before the High Court vide O.P.No.24729/2001, it was later withdrawn. Thereafter, they have filed O.A.656/2005 impleading the 4th respondent and it was disposed of vide order dated 13.9.2006 and its operative part was as under:
"In the light of the facts and legal position set out above and keeping in view the spirit of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court referred to supra, I am of the view that the claims of the second and third applicants, the minor children of the first applicant have to be enquired into by the Railway Administration, after giving due notice and opportunity to all concerned. They may do so with reference to the records maintained and produced before them. Already the representation of the applicants is pending before them in Annexure A-1. They shall also consider the documents produced in this O.A by the applicants in support of their claim and the applicants shall be given an opportunity to produce further documents if necessary to substantiate their case. This exercise shall be done by th respondents at the level...
To continue reading
Request your trial