MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1 The applicant is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to draw and disburse family pension to her.
2 The applicant states that she is the eldest and unmarried daughter of late N.J.Hilari, a Pump Operator of MES at Naval Base, Cochin who died while in service on 7.8.2005. The deceased left behind two daughters and a son. At the time of death of her father the applicant was 19 years, her younger sister 18 years and brother 14 years of old. The applicant's mother predeceased her father on 7.11.2004. Being the eldest daughter the applicant was granted family pension w.e.f 8.8.2005 and was continuing to draw the same till May 2010. It is further stated that the applicant's younger sister is married and the applicant is unmarried. It is averred that dependent unmarried daughter is entitled to continue to draw family pension till her marriage or she starts drawing income more than the prescribed limit. The applicant became 25 years old on 11.5.2010 and her family pension got discontinued. She was informed that to restore her family pension she is to submit proof that she is unmarried. Accordingly she submitted necessary certificate from Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, Cochin to the 3rd respondent by letter dated 29,10,2010 (Annx.A1). Thereafter a reminder was sent on 27th May 2011. So far nothing is heard from the 2nd respondent nor was the pension released by the 3rd respondent. She further submitted that grant of family pension is a statutory duty cast upon the 3rd respondent and failure to discharge the same is arbitrary and discriminatory.
3 No reply statement was filed on behalf of R1 - 3. The 4th respondent, the Canara Bank, filed their reply. According to R-4, his role is limited to paying the pension, which is deposited in the Bank, by DPDO, Ernakulam. It is stated that the amount received on behalf of the applicant is credited in her account and the last payment received on her behalf is on 31.5.2010.
4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
5 The short question that comes up for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to continuously receive family pension due to her on the death of her father, an employee of the MES.
6 Undisputedly the father of the applicant died on 7.8.2005 while in service by a road accident. She is the eldest unmarried daughter of the deceased and was drawing family pension till 31.5.2010. The proof sought by the respondent to the effect that the applicant is unmarried was issued by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, Cochin and it was submitted through the 2nd respondent on 29.10.2010.
7 Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules provides that the family pension granted to dependent unmarried/divorced/widowed daughter, will continue till the date of death or up to the date of marriage or re-marriage or till the date she starts earning, whichever is the earliest as the case may be. It further provides that Family pension to unmarried/widowed/divorced dependent daughter shall be payable only after the other eligible family members have ceased to be eligible to receive family pension and there is no disabled child to receive the family pension. In the instant case the brother of the applicant who is stated to be 14 years old at the time of death of his father has not crossed the age of 25 years. On attaining the age of 25 years the respondents have stopped payment of family pension to the applicant as her younger brother became eligible to receive the same Rule 54(8)(iii) of the CCS(Pension) Rules provides that Family Pension to the children shall be payable in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him/her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension. In this case, the applicant was paid family pension till 11.5.2010, till she became 25 years old. During hearing the applicant's counsel stated that the applicant got married on 29.1.2012. Now it is for the younger brother, to submit his claim for pension from May 2010 if he is not gainfully employed. In case such claim papers are received by respondent No.2, he will duly process the case and forward the same to respondent No.3 for issuance of Pension Payment Order (PPO). This will not be applicable, if the brother has been offered a job in the respondents department under compassionate ground appointment scheme. Respondent No.2 should have filed a reply to furnish the necessary facts. Since he has failed to do so, this Tribunal is compelled to make inferences, from the sketching details available in the pleadings.
8 In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not eligible for family pension if her brother who is below 25 years of age is eligible for the same. In case her brother is gainfully employed, the applicant will be entitled for family pension till 28.1.2012. If so, respondent No.3 is directed to restore family pension to the applicant within time line of eight weeks. Failure to do so, will result in interest of 8% and cost of Rs.5000/- being payable by the official/officer, in the office of respondent No.3 who are responsible for not issuing a reply to the applicant in response to her representation and restoring her family pension if eligible, on completion of the time line fixed for issuance of PPO. The OA is disposed of with the above direction.