Full Judgment
Devinder Gupta, C.J.
1. Mr. A.P. Vijayam was appointed as Time-scale Clerk with the Department of Telecommunications on 1-7-1974. While in service as Supervisor in the establishment section, he died on 27-6-2000. During his service period, he changed nominations from time to time for the purpose of death-cum-retirement benefits. Initially he had shown the names of other members viz., Smt. A. Vasundhara, wife and Mr. A. Jayaseelan, son. Smt. A. Vasundhara died on 1-11-1994. Fresh names of the family particulars were submitted by the deceased employee on 21-7-1998, in which, he mentioned the names of Smt. A. Vasantha, wife; A. Jayaseelan, son from the first wife; A. Naveen and A. Keerthipriya, son and daughter respectively through his wife Smt. A. Vasantha. There were rival claims for retirement benefits. A Jayaseelan filed a suit in O.S. No. 901 of 2000 in the court of learned Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for declaration, impleading, the department as one of the defendants and Smt. A. Vasantha as another defendant. The matter was referred to Lok Adalath, in which, an award came to be passed on 7-3-2001.
2. Mr. A. Jayaseelan, the son of first wife and Smt. A. Vasantha, widow of the deceased employee, settled the disputes amicably, on the basis of which, an order was passed by the Lok Adalath. Inter alia, the award provides that the entire emoluments and retiral benefits of the deceased shall be received by Smt. A. Vasantha, the widow of the deceased for her benefit and for the benefit of her two minor children. She also undertook to clear the debts of the deceased and thus A. Jayaseelan relinquished his claim on retiral benefits and emoluments in favour of Smt. A. Vasantha and her two minor children. Smt. A. Vasantha was also held to be entitled to lay claim for Family Pension over which the son of the first wife had no right.
3. As regards the claim for compassionate appointment, Smt. A.Vasantha stated that she would not claim compassionate appointment, which can be claimed by A. Jayaseelan. There were other terms and conditions, with which we are not concerned. After the Lok Adalath passed the award, which of course is accepted and not challenged by the heirs of the deceased employee, the Department, feeling aggrieved, filed W.P. No. 23648 of 2002 in this court questioning the award of the Lok Adalath on the ground that finding in respect of compassionate appointment is beyond the purview of the Lok Adalath and only the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction under the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4. The aforementioned writ petition was filed by the Department after receiving the notice by them in the writ petition filed by Smt. A. Vasantha seeking enforcement of the award of the Lok Adalath, since she was not paid the full emoluments and other retiral benefits and was not granted family pension. Smt. A. Vasantha filed W.P. No. 13949 of 2002 seeking direction against the department to pay the entire emoluments/ retiral benefits payable consequent on the death of A.P. Vijayam, including family pension.
5. Both the writ petitions had been taken up for consideration by us today. Smt. A. Vasantha is represented by her learned counsel Smt. D. Satyavathi, so also the department is represented by the learned standing counsel Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma. Mr. A. Jayaseelan is not present.
6. Challenge to the award of the Lok Adalath by the Department is totally misconceived. There is no direction issued by the Lok Adalath against the department for compassionate appointment. Lok Adalath has simply recorded the settlement, which was arrived at between the widow of the deceased and the son from the 1st wife, by which, widow agreed that she will not claim compassionate appointment. Thus, in view of this compromise, department will have to consider the application of A. Jayaseelan for compassionate appointment in accordance with the rules and regulations and in case he is eligible under the rules and entitled for compassionate appointment, without insisting upon any no objection certificate from the widow of the deceased, the department has to proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Lok Adalath's award cannot be said to be without jurisdiction by which it simply recorded the concession of the widow of the deceased that in lieu of giving up of the claim by the son of the 1st wife of the deceased of his share in the retiral benefits, she is not claiming compassionate appointment. Such an award could be passed by the Lok Adalath in exercise of its jurisdiction under the provisions of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
7. In view of the terms of settlement in the award of the Lok Adalath, the department is obliged to pay the entire emoluments and retiral benefits and to grant family pension to the widow of the deceased viz., Smt. A. Vasantha for her benefit and for the benefit of her two minor children in accordance with the rules and regulations without insisting upon her to produce no objection certificate from A. Jayaseelan, the son through first wife, since award itself constitutes full discharge by A. Jayaseelan of his claim in favour of Smt. A. Vasantha and her two sons.
8. Accordingly, we dispose of both the writ petitions with a direction to the department to process the application of A. Jayaseelan for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereupon without insisting upon A. Jayaseelan to produce 'no objection certificate' from the widow of the deceased employee. We also direct the department to work out all retiral benefits payable to Smt. A. Vasantha and her two minor children, including arrears and pay the same within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also pass appropriate orders as regards payment of family pension. Ordered accordingly. No costs.