# Kumari Poonam Nijhawan v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1353
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 19079 of 2018
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kumari-poonam-nijhawan-v-union-of-india-ors-50051
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
order
of
Central
Administrative Tribunal under holding
the petitioner to be not dependent on
her
mother-
under
challengedependency to be determined on the
basis of the minimum family pensionpetitioner's salary was less than the
payable family pension- petitioner held
to be entitled to the family pensionimpugned
order
quashed-petition
allowed with costs.
HELD:
In the given facts, it is admitted that the
minimum family pension computed as per the
Railways was at Rs. 11776/- inclusive of
dearness allowance as applicable on the date
of death of the pensioner and on the said
date the monthly salary of the petitioner was
at Rs. 10912/-. (Para 16)

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner has been subjected to
unnecessary harassment by the respondentRailway authorities. Accordingly, the writ
petition is allowed. (Para 17)

Petition Allowed. (E-14)

## Text

4 All. Kumari Poonam Nijhawan Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1353
counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance upon the following judgments of
the Apex Court:-

1. Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.)
vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 3 SCC 485.

2.
Secretary,
State
of
Karnataka and Others versus Umadevi
and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1.

19. It is made clear that the services
of the petitioner has never been regularized
by any specific formal order issued by the
competent authority. The instant petition
does not warrant any interference by this
Court and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1353
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV, J.

Writ-A No. 19079 of 2018

Kumari Poonam Nijhawan ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, Sri Gopal Verma

Service
Law
-
order
of
Central
Administrative Tribunal under holding
the petitioner to be not dependent on
her
mother-
under
challengedependency to be determined on the
basis of the minimum family pensionpetitioner's salary was less than the
payable family pension- petitioner held
to be entitled to the family pensionimpugned
order
quashed-petition
allowed with costs.
HELD:
In the given facts, it is admitted that the
minimum family pension computed as per the
Railways was at Rs. 11776/- inclusive of
dearness allowance as applicable on the date
of death of the pensioner and on the said
date the monthly salary of the petitioner was
at Rs. 10912/-. (Para 16)

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the petitioner has been subjected to
unnecessary harassment by the respondentRailway authorities. Accordingly, the writ
petition is allowed. (Para 17)

Petition Allowed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Nandan,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner/original applicant and Sri Goptal
Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/Railways.

2. Petitioner/original applicant is
seeking
quashing
of
the
impugned
judgment and order dated 9 May 2018,
passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, (for
short ''Tribunal') in Original Application
No. 1330/01512 of 2015 whereby, the
original application (for short ''OA') came
to be dismissed.

3. Father of the petitioner was an
employee of the respondent-railways and
retired on 30 April 1985. Pension of the
employee was duly computed and the
employee received pension until his death
on 13 December 2007. Thereafter, wife of
the employee and mother of the petitioner
received family pension till her death until
23 October 2013. Petitioner, is the
unmarried
daughter
of
the
deceased
employee who was living with her parents,
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applied for family pension being dependent
on the pensioner.

4. The respondent by the impugned
order dated 22 May 2015, rejected the
claim of the applicant for family pension
which was subject matter of challenge
before the Tribunal. The claim of the
petitioner came to be rejected on a report
submitted by the Welfare Inspector that the
petitioner was employed as a teacher in
Nirmala
Convent
School,
Jhansi,
at
consolidated salary of Rs.10,912/- per
month. As per the respondent-railways
pursuant to Railway Board instructions
dated 11 September 2013, since the
dependent/widow of the employee was
getting minimum pension at Rs. 3500/- per
month, therefore, petitioner was not entitled
to pension since her monthly salary was
more than the minimum pension on the
date of death of her mother. Accordingly,
pursuant to the Railway Board letter dated
11 September 2013, the respondentrailways rejected the claim of the petitioner
that since her salary was more than that of
the pension of her mother on the date of her
death i.e. 23 October 2013 at Rs. 10,912/-,
accordingly, petitioner was not entitled to
pension. In other words, it was held that
petitioner was not dependent upon her
mother as per the Railway Board circulars.

5. The office memorandum dated 11
September 2013, provides for eligibility
of widow/divorced daughters for grant of
family pension. In para-4 of the office
memorandum, it has been clarified that
family pension is payable to the children
of the deceased employee as they are
considered to be dependent on the
government servant/pensioner or his/her
spouse. The eligibility criteria is that a
child, who is not earning equal to or more
than the sum of minimum family pension
and dearness relief thereon, is considered
to be dependent on his/her parents.
Similarly,
family
pension
to
a
widow/divorced daughter is payable,
provided,
she
fulfils
all
eligibility
conditions
at
the
time
of
death/ineligibility of her parents and on
the date of her turn to receive family
pension comes. Para-4 reads thus:

"It is clarified that the family
pension is payable to the children as they
are considered to to dependent on the
Government servant/pensioner or his/her
spouse. A child who is not earning equal
to or more than the sum of minimum
family
pension
and
dearness
relief
thereon is considered to be dependent on
his/her parents. Therefore, only those
children who are dependent and meet
other conditions of eligibility for family
pension at the time of death of the
Government servant or his/her spouse,
whichever is later, are eligible for family
pension. If two or more children are
eligible for family pension at that time,
family pension will be payable to a
child on his/her turn provided he/she is
still eligible for family pension when
the number comes. Similarly, family
pension to a widowed/divorced daughter
is payable provided she fulfils all
eligibility conditions at the time of
death/incligibility of her parents and on
the date her turn to receive family
pension comes."

6. It has not been disputed by the
respondents either before Tribunal or
before this Court that petitioner is the
unmarried
daughter
of
the
deceased
employee and she is entitled to pension but
the claim of the petitioner was rejected only
on the ground that she did not fulfil the
eligibility criteria i.e. she was earning
4 All. Kumari Poonam Nijhawan Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1355
salary more than the minimum family
pension plus dearness relief thereon, on the
death of the widow of the employee i.e. 23
October 2013.

7. A categorical stand has been taken
by the respondents that the minimum
pension of the widow of the employee on
the date of death is at Rs. 3500/- plus
dearness relief admissible on the pension.

8. As per the records of the railways
filed before the Tribunal, family pension of
the widow of the deceased employee
computed as on 1 January 2006 is at Rs.
5165/-. This is reflected as per Pension
Payment Order (PPO) dated 20 December
2010 (R.A.-1), Rs. 1033/- was computed as
enhanced pension being 20% additional
pension as on 20 March 2013 i.e. the date
of death. Additional pension is payable to
the pensioner on reaching the age of 80
years, accordingly, on 20 March 2013, the
minimum family pension admissible to the
mother of the petitioner was at Rs. 6198/-
(Rs. 5165 + Rs. 1033) and the admissible
dearness relief at 90% was at 5598/-,
accordingly, the total pension admissible to
the mother of the petitioner on the date of
her death i.e. on 20 March 2013, works out
at Rs. 11776/-. The computation is as per
the report of the railway authorities dated 9
March 2015, which is admitted by the
railways.
On
the
said
report
an
endorsement has been made by the
competent
authority
that
since
the
petitioner was earning less than the
minimum pension on the date of death, of
the pensioner, she is entitled to pension
being unmarried daughter. The relevant
portion of the endorsement of the authority
is extracted:

"As per para-8.5 at page-288 and
para-4 of the RBE 99/2013 at page 274
P274 earning of daughter is less than the
pension + DA so pension to daughter, is
agree to."

9. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-railways
has
filed
supplementary affidavit on the direction of
this Court along with the computation
admitting the computation of pension noted
herein above. However, it appears that an
erroneous stand was taken before the
Tribunal, as well as, before this Court in
their counter objection/counter affidavit
and supplementary affidavit, wilfully and
deliberately against their own records. The
Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 20
December 2010, communicated to the State
Bank of India, by the railway authority
categorically records the minimum family
pension at Rs. 5165 w.e.f. 1 January 2006,
noted herein above, admissible to the
mother of the petitioner.

10. Communication of the Board
dated 15 September 2008, has been relied
upon by the respondent-Railways which
communicates the Government's decisions
for
implementation
of
the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay
Commission - revision of provisions
regulating pension/family pension etc. The
effective date for the revised provisions is
on and after 1 January 2006. Reliance has
been placed on para 8.1 pertaining to
family pension, which reads as follows:

8.1 Family pension shall be
calculated at a uniform rate of 30% of basic
pay in all cases and shall be subject to a
minimum of Rs. 3500/-p.m. and maximum
of 30% of the highest pay in the
Government. (The highest pay in the Govt.
is Rs. 90,000 since 1.1.2006). Rule 75(2)
relating to Family Pension, 1964 under
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pension Rules shall stand modified to this
extent.

11. Para 8.3 further provides that the
quantum of family pension available to old
family pensioners would be increased as
follows:

The quantum of family pension
available to the old family pensioners shall
be increased as follows:
Age
of
family
pensioners
Additional quantum
of family pension
From 80 years to
less than 85 years
20% of basic family
pension

12. Para 8.4 for the purposes of grant
of family pension, the family shall be
categorized as under:

8.4 For the purpose of grant of
Family Pension, the ''Family' shall be
categorized as under:

Category-I

(a) ....

(b)
Son/daughter
(including
widowed daughter), upto the date of his/her
marriage/remarriage or till the date he/she
starts earning or till the age of 25 years,
whichever is the earliest.

13.
 Para
5
provides
for
the
dependency criteria for the purpose of
family pension, which shall be the
minimum family pension along with
dearness allowance thereon. Para 5 reads
thus:

The dependency criteria of the
purpose of family pension shall be the
minimum family pension along with
dearness relief thereon.

14. The respondents had computed
the pension of the deceased employee and
the family pension w.e.f. 1 January 2006 as
noted earlier. In view of the Office
Memorandum dated 11 September 2013,
pertaining to eligibility for grant of family
pension, a child/daughter, who is not
earning equal to or more than the sum of
minimum family pension and dearness
relief thereon is considered to dependent on
his/her parents. The eligibility of the
daughter child/daughter is to be considered
on the date of death of the pensioner. It is
admitted by the respondent-Railways that
on the date of death of the pensioner, the
petitioner was receiving less emoluments
than the family pension plus dearness
allowance thereon being received by the
petitioner.

15. The stand of the respondentRailways that the minimum family pension
admissible to a pensioner is at Rs. 3500/-
per month and maximum 30% of the
highest pay of the Government, therefore,
the petitioner would not be eligible as
admittedly her monthly salary was higher
than Rs. 3500/- per month. The submission
is on misreading of the Rule/Railway
Board order dated 15 September 2008. Para
8.1 of the memorandum merely mandates
that no pensioner would be entitled to
family pension below Rs. 3500/- month. In
other words, upon computation of family
pension, if the pension works out to be less
than 3500/-, the same shall be raised to Rs.
3500/-. In respect of other pensioners upon
computation whose pension is over and
above Rs. 3500/- that would be the
minimum family pension for the purpose of
determining the eligibility/dependency of
the son/daughter for their claim for family
pension. The eligibility of a dependent
child/daughter is to be computed on the
minimum family pension that was being
received by the pensioner at the time of
his/her death.
4 All. Hari Ram Meena Vs. The General Manager & Ors.
1357

16. In the given facts, it is admitted
that
the
minimum
family
pension
computed as per the Railways was at Rs.
11776/- inclusive of dearness allowance
as applicable on the date of death of the
pensioner and on the said date the
monthly salary of the petitioner was at
Rs. 10912/-.

17. In the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the petitioner has been
subjected to unnecessary harassment by
the
respondent-Railway
authorities.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

18. The respondents shall compute
the pension admissible to the petitioner
w.e.f. 23 October 2013 and the same shall
be paid month to month. The arrears of
pension shall be released within one
month from date along with interest @
8% per annum, on the due amount from
the due date.

19. Cost of litigation assessed at Rs.
25,000/- to be paid by the second
respondent-General
Manager,
North
Central
Railway,
Allahabad
to
the
petitioner within the same period.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1357
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 29075 of 2009

Hari Ram Meena ...Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satish Mandhyan, Sri Kuldeep Kumar,
Sri Kumar Anish, Sri Pankaj Misra, Sri Ram
Chandra Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Govind Saran, Sri Govind Srivastava, Sri
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Sri Sudhir Bharti, Sri
P.N. Rai

Service Law - dismissal order under
challenge- appointment obtained wrongly
on the strength of reservation-Article 342
of the Constitution of India-President
notifies the tribes of State as Scheduled
Tribes-caste certificate not invalid only
because the petitioner does not reside in
the village-being a central government
service-benefit of reservation available
throughout the State-verification of caste
certificate to be carried out by District
Level
and
State
Level
Screening
Committee-no such determination made
in the instant case-impugned orders held
to be illegal-quashed- petition allowed.

HELD:
After hearing the rival contentions as raised by
the learned counsel for the parties the
controversy as raised in the present petition has
to be testified on the basis of the proposition of
law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional
Commissioner AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94
wherein it is specifically held that in case of
verification of caste certificate with regard to its
genuineness the District Level and State level
screening
committee
as
already
been
constituted by the Government of India, in case
if any establishment is having doubt with regard
to the caste certificate pertaining to SC/ST the
same may be referred to District level screening
committee
which
is
the
only
competent
authority to comment upon the caste certificate
of SC/ST.

There is hardly any reference of any Inquiry
Report or the determination made by the
District Level Screening Committee over the
issue of Caste certificate of the petitioner as
such the entire proceedings as initiated in the
shape
of
disciplinary
proceedings
which