Smt Antonia Monica v. 1. Controllers of Defence Accounts

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondent No. 'l to 3 in issuing lmpugned Letter No. AN/ll/FX8309709/08- OB/Crr.PPO dated 23.05.2016 in defiance of the orders dated 30.06.2018 passed in FCOP No. 27-512005 by the Honorable Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad as unjust, illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of my fundamental rights and further direct the Respondents to grant me family pension of Mr. Francis Xavier. |.A.NO:1 OF 2018 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay against the impugned Letter No.AN/ll/F)U8309709/08- 08/Corr.PPO dated 23-05-2016 of the Respondent No.1 and suspend the same. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DURGA PRASAD KOTAMRAJU Counsel forthe Respondents : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER ,. f- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 13899 OF 2018 ORDER: Petitioner complains that Respondents 1 and 2 - Controller of Defence Accounts issued letter dated 23.05.2016, impugned in this Writ Petition, in defiance of the order dated

30.06.2006 in FCOP No. 275 of 2OO5 on the lile of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. A consequential direction is therefore, sought to direct respondents to grant Iamity pension of Mr. Francis Xavier, claimed to be husband of petitioner.

2. Petitioner seeks to grant family pension on the foot of the order dated 30.06.2OO6 in the mentioned FCOP at the instalce of her late husband who retired as Senior Auditor in the respondent department, on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad held that wife - petitioner herein is entitled to receive family pension and husband is restrained from nominating any other person to receive the same. During pendency of Appeal hled by wife, husband died and Appeal was closed on production of death certificate. Consequently, petitioner submitted representation to the Competent Authority 1 :r- seeking implementation of the order in FCOP. However, the l"t respondent rejected her request on 23.05.2016 on the ground that her marriage with employee was dissolved. According to petitioner, while dissolving marriage, the Family Court held that she is entitled to receive family pension after death of husband, who also was restrained from nominating any other person to receive pension. Petitioner states that she is 67 and she has to take care of her son, who is not mentally sound and also get rid of the debts secured for her daughter's wedding. Hence, the, Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Respondents' case, as per their counter, is that a monthly pension of Rs. 1O,O25/- was sanctioned vide PPO dated 2O.O2.2OO9 to deceased husband of petitioner, however, the 2nd respondent returned the pension documents uide letter dated Ol.02.2016 observing that marriage of employee with petitioner was dissolved and divorced wife is not entitled for family pension. The documents were resubmitted to the 2nd respondent by letter dated 07.03.2016, however, the same were again returned stating that divorced wife would not be entitled for family pension without prior sanction of GOI uide letter dated O3.05.2O 16. It is also stated, according to records, the I I I /" deceased employee had not nominated any person including petitioner for drawl of family pension, hence, no one is receiving family pension after his demise.

4. Heard Sri Durga Prasad Kotamraju, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General.

5. There is no dispute that petitioner was the legally- wedded wife of the deceased employee and at the instance of husband, marriage was dissolved by the order dated 30.O6.2006 in F.C.O.P.No. 275 of 2OO5. There is also no dispute that the Judge, Family Court directed that wife is entitled to receive family pension and husband was restrained from nominating any other person to receive family pension and the said order had attained finality on dismissal of Appeal filed by wife, due to death of husband, in the interregnum. When there is a judicial pronouncement to the effect that petitioner is entitled to receive family pension on the death of husband, without there being any challenge to the same, respondents cannot reject the claim of petitioner on the ground that divorced wife is not entitled for pension without prior sanction of GOI. Further, it is to be noted that there is no parallel claim seeking entitlement of pension. Even according to respondents, as per records, the deceased -,.- I I 4 employee had not nominated any person including petitioner for drawl of pension, hence, no one is receiving family pension after the death of employee. Taking the above facts into consideration as also the age of petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to respondents to pay f,amily pension in favour of petitioner.

6. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of directing respondents to grant petitioner family pension of Mr. Francis Xavier forthwith. Arrears from the date of her entitlemerlt till date shall be reckoned and be paid to her within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Z . Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- N,SRIHARI ASSISTANT REG]STRAR \ \ SECTION OFFICER 5 h i I?-_-- I I: To SA

1. The Controllers Of Defence Accounts, No.1 Staff Road, Secunderabad-09. 2. The Controller of Defence Accounts, Office of the principal CDA(Pensions), Allhabad.

3. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam, New Delhi 110010.

4. One CC to SRI DURGA PRASAD KOTAMRAJU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDIA, Advocate [OPUC]

6. Two CD Copies Y^,b t HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 ORDER WP.No.13899 of 2018 H€ srA ;e \ i) v i) ,t 03 API 206 * O4'.sn a, a'^t11 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @)"ra w-