High Court · 2025

itution of lndia praying that in the erewith, the High Court maY be onnected with the impugned order Petition under Article 226 of the Con circumstances stated in the affidavit filed pleased to call for the records leading to and t0001812022 dated 16 02.2024 and passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No 021 Bl2O22 daled 01 .05.2024 and the order in R A 02111412024 in O A No 02110 /P-HY8/69s/Sett/DPGi 2021 dated rejection order issued in proceedings No SC other appropriate Writ or order as 12.10.2021 and issue writ of certiorari or an ssed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in in deemed fit quashing the impugned orders p OA No 021l0001812022 dated 16 02 2024 a d order in R.A 02111412024 in O.A No 021/0 18/2022 dated 01 .05.2024 and the rejection order issued in proceedings No SCR/P-HYB/695iSett/DPGI 2021 daled 12.10.202 1 and consequently ii) direct the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner w.e.f 22.09.1977 in lieu of Exgratia with arrears with interest at the rate of 12 o/o. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. Union of lndia, Rep by the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 2 The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Rarlway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 3 The Drvisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway. Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad-500071

4. The senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Sgcunderabad-500071

5. The senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad-500071 AND Sml. Kharimunnisa Begam, Wo.Late Siddique (Ex Driver "C'7KQO) aged 87 Years, Occ House Wife, C/o. M.A Khadar, H.No.6-1-151, f lat No '101, Ganga Residency, Padmarao Nagar, Walker town, secunderabad-50006'l .,.PETITIONERS ..RESPONOENT 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 permit the Petitioner to file additional affidavit in this WP. No. 16853 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.TRINADHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A HINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AN THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIC TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No. 6853 of 2o24 ORDER: eer v I ton'bte Sn Justrce Abhna d Kun r Sha,.l4 Aggrieved by the order, dat d 76.02.2024 passed in O.A.No.18 of 2022 by the Centr Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad r short, "the Tribunal"), the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G. Trinadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner d the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appeari g for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the titioner had contended that the petitioner's husband wa appointed as a Driver in Mechanical Department of t e then Secunderabad Division of South Central Railw on 25.i0.1945. While, he was working as Driver, he ha expired on 21.05.1963, after rendering 18 years of servic with the Railways.

4. Learned counsei for the petitioner had further contended that the Family Pension Scheme was I I I 2 '! I introduced in the year 1964 and since the said scheme was implemented alter the death of the petitioner,s husband, ne ither he nor the petitioner had the opportunity to opt lor it. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that widows of deceased railway employees namely Smt. poonammal and others have approached the Honourable Supreme Court seeking extension of lamily pension benefits. During the pendency of that casc, the (iovernment, on its own, made a statement belore the Honor..rrable Supreme Court outlining the extent to which it was willing to accept the claims of widows.

5. Pursuant to the Government,s statement and subsequent clarifications, the Honourable Supreme Court uide judgment dated 30.04.1985 in Smt. poonamal and. others u. Union of Indiat, extended the benefits of the family pension scheme, with effect from 22.O9.1977 to the families of railway servants who were on a pensionable establishment but were not covered by the 1964 scheme. This included the families of those employees who retired | 1gs5 Rtp t t9o 3 or died before 3I.12.1963, as wel as those who were alive on that date but opted out of the 1964 scheme. Following this judgment, the Railway Bo has issued a letter, dated 26.O7. 1985, extending the Family Pension Scheme to such eligible beneficiaries.

6. Admittedly, in the instan case, the petitioner's husband had expired on 21.05. 19 3 and he has not opted for family pension scheme. In fa t there was no family pension scheme in 1963, so as t enable him to opt lor family pension scheme. Therefor under the said letter, dated 26.O7.1985, the petitione is entitled to Family Pension Scheme. Learned counse for the petitioner had further contended that the petitio er, now aged about 89 years, was unaware of the existe ce of the Circular. The respondent-Railways had been paying her ex-gratia pension since 1989. When the pe tioner realised that she was entitled to the Family Pensi n Scheme as per the Railway Board letter, dated

6.07.1985, she had submitted a representation to the respondents to extend the Family Pension Scheme. The etitioner is also willing 4 to refund the benefits which she has received under ex- gratia scheme or in the alternative, requested the respondents to adjust the amounts towards the Family Pension Scheme and pay the remaining balance benefits to her. However, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner and the same was rejected uide proceedings, dated 12.lO.2O2l.

7. Aggrieved by the rejection order dated l2.lo.2o2l, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1S of 2022 and, the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. uid.e order, dated 16.02.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Honourable Supreme Court has disposed of the judgment in Smt. Poonqmmal,s case and in pursuance of the said judgment, the respondents have issued Senior circular, dated 09.09.1985, wherein, a decision was taken to extend the lamily pension in accordance with the Railway pension Rules. The Family pension Scheme for Railwa,v employees was introduced in 1964 and the responclents subsequently, decided to extend the benefit of Family ,-7/ 5 Pension Scheme with ellect fro

22.O9.1977. Since the petitioner is entitled to the family pension in terms of the said circular, the respondents, all fairness, ought to have extended the same to the p itioner by adjusting the amounts which was already paid to the petitioner under the ex-gratia scheme. Learned c unsel for the petitioner had further contended that the ase of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Railw y Board letter, dated

26.07.19A5 which was issued judgment of the Honourable in purslrance of the Supreme court in Srnt. Poonammal case (supra 1) Therefore, the Tribunal has not appreciated any of the c ntentions raised by the petitioner and mechanically dismi sed the O.A.

8. Learned counsel for the etitioner had further contended that the Tribunal was the view that since the petitioner had already been gra ted ex-gratia payment with eflect from 1988, the que tion of permitting the petltloner to switch over to the amily Pension Scheme would not be permissible as per e Rule and accordingly, dismissed the O.A. Learned couns I for the petitioner had 6 further contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner or her husband to opt for family pension under the Raiiway Pension Scheme, as admittedll,, the Family Pension Scheme for widows was not applicable till 22.09.1977. It was only upon issuance ol Senior circular, dated 09.09.1985 that all the widows of deceased railway servants were eligible for Family pension, particularly in respect of such of those railway servants who had expired prior to O 1.O 1. 1964 or otherwise not covered under the earlier famil1' pension scherne. Admittedly, the petitioner,s husband had expired prior to 01.01.1964. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to farnily pension scheme. Therefore, appropriate orders be passecl in the Writ petition by setting aside the order, dated 16.02.2024 passed in O.A.No.18 ol 2022 and the rejection order, dated 72.1O.2021 and further direct the respondents to extend the Family Pension Scheme in pursuance ol the Railway Board letter, dated 26.07.1 9g5 by adjusting the amounts granted to the petitioner under ex-gratia scheme and allow the Writ Petition. 1 1 l -1 7

9. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India had contended that the Railway Provident Fund Scheme was replaced by the F ily Pension Scheme in

1957. The petitioner's hus and was given two opportunities to switch over to t e pension scheme while he was in service uide notihcatio s, dated 17.O9.1960 and

26.1O.1962, with the cut-off date fixed as O1.O7.1959 and

01.O9.7962 respectively. Ho ever, the petitioner's husband did not opt for pensi n scheme and instead exercised his option to remain under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Subse uently, the petitioner's husband expired. Therefore, the uestion of permitting the petitioner to come under Famil Pension Scheme would not arise. It is further submitte that the petitioner had already availed the benefit und r the ex gratia pension scheme and after nearly 35 year of accepting the same, the petitioner cannot now be per itted to turn around and claim benefits under the tramity P nsion Scheme.

10. Learned Deputy Solicitor G neral of India has relied upon the judgment of the Honou able Supreme Court i.e., 8 Krishna Kumar u. Union of Ind.id, wherein, il was held that the persons who have opted for the Contributory Provident F'und (CpF) Scheme cannot be permitted to srvitch over to pension Scheme as both benr:fit schemes tun parallel to each other. Therefore, switching lrom the CPF Scheme to pension Scheme is not permissible. The Honourable Supreme Court further held that a person who once opted for the CpF scheme, tl-rey cannot subsequentl-y be brought under the Family pension Scheme. Hence, the petitioner having received the ex_ gratia payment under the ex-gratia scheme cannot now turn around and claim Famity pension in pursuance of the Railway Boarcl letter, dated 26.O2.1985. The said circular, has no application in l.he present case. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A.

11. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India had further relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India o. M.I{. Sarkana, whcrein, it was held that the Railway empioyees governed b1, CpF Scheme, - 1990 (.1) sC( 107 ':o to r:1 sc'c :u -// 9 who did not opt for the Pension cheme in spite of giving several opportunities, cannot be ermitted to switch over to the Family Pension Scheme from the CPF Scheme. Therefore, there are no merits in e Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed L2. This Court, having consider d the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of e view that the case of the petitioner is square.ly covere by the Railway Board letter, dated 26.07.1985. A pe sal of the letter, dated

26.O7.1985 makes it clear that th persons, who were part of the Family Pension Scheme an who have retired on or before O1.01.1964, are entitled t be paid family pension scheme. Admittedly, in the ins t case, the husband of the petitioner was a RailwaY se ant and he has expired on 21.05.1963 prior to the intro ction of Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Tlne husband of the petitioner could not opt lor family pension scheme an as per the said RailwaY Board letter, dated 26.O7.1985, t e persons who could not opt lor family pension sche e were permitted 1n pursuance to the judgment of t e Honourable Supreme :: l0:: Court in Smt. poonammal,s case that too based upon the concesston made by the respondents The judgment reiied upon by the respondents i.e., Krishnq. Kumar,scase has no application ln the present case, as admittedly, the Honourable Supreme Court in that case was dealing with the persons who have opted for CpF scheme. In those circumstalces, the honourable Supreme Court heid that the cPF scheme runs parallel to the pension Scheme and therefore, the employees who had opted for CpF scheme were not be entitled to switch over to the pensron scheme.

13. However, in the instant case, the petitioner,s husband had expired prior to O I .O 1. 1964. The respondents uide Railway Board letter, dated 26.07.lgas has taken a decision to extend the Family pension Scheme in respect of widows of railway servants, who hacl retired prior to 01.01.1964 and who could not op1 for Family Pension Scheme and the same was extended with effect from 22.09.1972. Thus the present case is squarely covered in terms of Railway Board,s letter, dated 26.07.1985. Therefore, the order, dated 16.O2.2024 ::I I passed in O.A.No. 18 of 2022 y the Tribunal and the rejection letter, dated 12.10.2O2 are liable to be set aside and the respondents are direc d to extend the family pension to the petitioner in term of Railway Board letter, dated 26.07.1985 and adjust e amounts which were paid to the petitioner in pursuan e to ex-gratia scheme. L4. With the above observatio s, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneou applications pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COP SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rb* SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The General Manager, South Central R Union of lndia.

2. The Principal Chief Persohnel Officer, S Secunderabad

3. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad-5000 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secundera

5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Secunderabad Division, Sanchalan Bhav 6 One CC to SRI G TRINADHA RAO, Advo 7 One CC to DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] 8 Two CD Copies ilway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, uth Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, entral Railway, Hyderabad Division, 1 South Central RailwaY, HYderabad d-500071 fficer, South Central RailwaY, n, Secunderabad-50007 1 te [OPUC] AL OF lNDlA, High Court for the BSR \t- BS HIGH COURT DATED:1610712025 I I (( 12 AUE 206 / ll .f t"., \-o'rr'<, i. , \'..\ ORDER WP.No.16853 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS A ,od &-"