Mahesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated August 24, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 2 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:

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 W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 3 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 W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 4 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 W.P.(C) 80/2023 Page 5 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