S.Satyavathi Devi v. The Central Govt. of India & Ors.

- The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking a direction to the respondents to sanction family pension in proceedings No.1(202)/ MHA/SW/DNK/99/396

13.03.2000 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division (Settlement) issued by the second respondent.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband – S.Nageswara Rao was initially appointed as Chargeman in Dandakaranya Development Authority Project, Ministry of Home Affairs (Rehabilitation Division), Government of India at Jagdalpur, Madhya Pradesh on 02.12.2967. He worked in the said capacity for 16 years 6 months. Subsequently, he was appointed as Chargeman (Technical) in Western Coal Fields with pay protection at Kusumanda of Madhya Pradesh with the permission of the Central Government and he was absorbed therein on 17.06.1984. The petitioner’s husband expired on 30.12.1999 while he was in service. The petitioner’s further case is that ever since the date on which her husband was relieved from Dandakaranya Project in the year 1984 till his death on 30.12.1999, he was being paid pension by the Central Government for the period during which he worked in Dandakaranya Project through P.P.O.No.111/1115-17

28.09.1988. Then, from 01.01.2000, the payment of pension was stopped. On 24.02.2000, the petitioner submitted a representation to the second respondent – Settlement Officer requesting for payment of family pensi on. On the said representation, the second respondent addressed a letter vide Order No.1(282)/MHA/SW/DNK/99/396

13.03.2000 requesting the Pay and Accounts Officer – the third respondent to issue authority for admissibility of revised family pension with effect from 01.01.2000. On

25.04.2000, the second respondent sought clarification on two aspects from the petitioner and in response to the same, the petitioner submitted clarification on 06.06.2000 through proper channel. Since the respondents did not take any action thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 07.03.2001 to the second and the third respondents redressal grievance. Subsequently, on 19.03.2001, third respondent addressed a letter to the second respondent to look into the matter. On 14.11.2002, the petitioner got issued another legal notice to the third respondent while marking a copy to the second respondent. On 20.11.2002, the Senior Accounts Officer, office of the Pay & Accounts Officer addressed a letter to the second respondent to furnish revised pension papers for taking further action. As there was no further action in this regard, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Article 67 of Page 154 of CSRs Vol.I clarifies as follows:-

The question of the retirement benefits which may be provided to the above category of permanent servants on their permanent absorption in the Public Sector undertakings alone, has been under the consideration of Government for some time. It has now that a permanent been decided Government servant who has been appointed in a public sector undertaking on the basis of his application, shall on his permanent absorption in such public sector undertaking, be entitled to the same retirement benefit in respect of his past service under the Government as are admissible to a permanent Government servant on deputation to the public sector undertaking on his permanent absorption therein. The permanent Government servant, who has been or are appointed in public sector undertaking on the basis of their to press application advertisements, vacancies etc., and who are absorbed hereafter on a permanent basis in the undertaking(s) in which they have been so appointed, will also be governed by the orders in respect of payment of retirement benefits Ministry of Finance, Bureau of Public Enterprises issued by circulation response O.M.No.2(90)/63.GM dated 08.11.1968, No.2(57)-68BPE(GM) dated 26th April, No.2(57)-PBE(GM) 1969, 03.01.1970 and No.2(57)/68.BPE(GM) dated 24.07.1971.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether there is any family pension scheme in the Western Coal Fields Limited.

As seen from the clarification submitted by the petitioner which is forwarded by the Deputy General Manager, Kusmanda Sub Area, it appears that the employees of Coal India are being governed by the self- contributory family pension and not by family pension Scheme, 1971 under Section 17 (1C) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The same appears to be clear from the letter of the Settlement Officer addressed to the Pay and Accounts Officer dated 13.03.2000.

Since there is no family pension scheme in Western Coal Fields Limited except self-contributory family pension and as per Article 67 referred above, the petitioner is entitled to family pension on the basis of the previous service rendered by her husband in the Dandakaranya Development Authority Project, Jagdalpur, itself.