Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC.
Through Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Exemptions are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Applications stand disposed of.
3. The present petition is directed against order dated 31.01.2018 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal by which O.A. 4226/2015 filed by a 39 year old widow seeking grant of family pension has been allowed.
4. Notice to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
5. With consent of the parties, the present petition is taken-up for final hearing at the preliminary stage itself.
6. In this case undisputedly the respondent’s husband Ram Kishan (since 2019:DHC:4703-DB deceased) was initially employed in the office of petitioner No.2 on casual basis in the year 1988. During his lifetime, he was conferred temporary status w.e.f. 01.12.1993 vide communication dated 17.12.1993 issued by the petitioners in compliance with the Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India dated 10.09.1993.
7. The case set-up by the respondent/widow before the Tribunal was that even during the lifetime of late Mr. Ram Kishan, he was entitled to be considered for regularization. During his lifetime the deceased had made two representations to the petitioners dated 16.09.2009 and 04.03.2011, but no action was taken on his representations. Mr. Ram Kishan unfortunately died on 28.03.2012 before the representations could be decided.
8. The respondent had also made a prayer in O.A. No.144/2013 claiming a job on compassionate grounds, which was however rejected by order dated 31.10.2012. The writ petition being W.P. (C) 11934/2015 filed assailing order dated 31.10.2012 made by the learned Tribunal was allowed partly on 01.03.2016 with directions to the present petitioners to consider Mohit Kumar, the son of the deceased employee, for compassionate appointment in accordance with the scheme and as per law. Meaning thereby that the application would be examined within the relevant scheme; and would not be rejected merely on the ground that the respondent’s husband was not a regular employee.
9. In the O.A. the respondent also averred that in a decision of the Delhi High Court, in an identical case titled Sharda Devi Vs. Union of India, W.P. (C) 3018/2012 decided on 25.04.2013, benefits of family pension had been allowed to a widow. In the said case, the Delhi High Court had taken note of a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India & others, reported at 1996 (7) SCC 113. The widow complains that despite the settled position of law as aforesaid, her request for family pension has been declined.
10. The Tribunal, while relying on a decision dated 11.11.2016 rendered by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Khacheru Singh Vs. Union of India and others, O.A. 1847/2012 wherein the deceased employee was deemed to be regularised and a direction was issued for grant of family pension, allowed the respondent’s O.A.
11. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting family pension to the widow of a deceased who was not a regular employee. He further submits that the order of the Tribunal is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside. Mr. Bhardwaj further submits that none of the juniors of late Mr. Ram Kishan have been regularized and therefore, no right accrues in favour of the deceased widow.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal.
13. It is not in dispute that prior to the demise of Mr. Ram Kishan, he had served on casual basis since the year 1988 for a period of around 24 years; and was conferred temporary status on 01.12.1993. The Tribunal in our view has rightly relied upon the earlier decision passed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sharda Devi (supra), which in turn has placed reliance on the Supreme Court verdict in Yashwant Hari Katakkar (supra), the relevant portion of which, reads as under: