IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33866 of 2003(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL
Vs
1. P.RADHAMMA, W/O. M.N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :17/08/2007
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 33866 of 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners challenge Ext.P3 order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.No.599/2002.
2. The respondent was the petitioner in the above O.A. Her husband late
Balakrishna Pillai was a casual employee under the Railways since 1967. He
was appointed as a substitute worker on 6.11.1972. On completion of six months’
period on 6.5.1973 he attained temporary status. While working in that post, he
died in an accident while on duty on 13.8.1977. The legal heirs were granted
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. His dependent son was
appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme. Though the
respondent moved for family pension at the relevant time, the same was rejected.
Later she came to know that a similarly placed widow’s claim was upheld by the
Apex Court in a judgment in 1996 and also by the Central Administrative Tribunal
in the very same year. So she filed a representation on 25.6.1999 before the
Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways, Madurai Division, claiming family
pension. On coming to know that the area where her husband worked was
presently under the Thiruvananthapuram Division, she submitted an application
before the General Manager, Thiruvananthapuram Division on 22.3.2000. When
there was no response to the said application, she filed O.A.No.599/2002 before
the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents in
the O.A., who are the petitioners herein, resisted the application contending that
the claim was barred by limitation. Further, it was also urged that as per the
WPC No.33866/2003 Page numbers
rules, she is not eligible to get family pension. The Central Administrative
Tribunal, after hearing both sides, held that her claim is covered by the judgment
of the Apex Court in Prabhabvati Devi v. Union of India & Others – AIR 1996 SC
752 and ordered to grant family pension with effect from 25.6.1999, the date on
which she applied for family pension at the first instance. The respondents in the
O.A. challenged the said judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in this
writ petition on various grounds. But, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the main ground pressed before this court is
only the question of limitation. The learned counsel pointed out that going by
section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985, the claim is hopelessly
barred by limitation.
3. We find that though in the reply statement before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, the respondents raised the plea of limitation, it appears
that the same was not argued before the Tribunal. A perusal of the judgment of
the Tribunal would show that the said point was not considered by it. Normally,
the reason must be the non-urging of the said contention. If it was urged and it
was not considered, the same should have been raised as a specific ground in
this writ petition. But we find that in the writ petition no such ground is taken.
Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
question of limitation is not at all raised in this writ petition. The learned counsel
for the petitioners contended that it is a pure question of law and therefore the
petitioners are entitled to raise it even in the absence of pleadings to that effect in
the writ petition. Going by the facts of the case, we feel that by the delay in
approaching the authorities for family pension and thereafter the Central
WPC No.33866/2003 Page numbers
Administrative Tribunal, the respondent/applicant alone suffered. In fact, the
petitioners herein stood to gain. The denial of pension takes place every month.
So it is a continuing cause of action. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that
the respondent’s claim for family pension is barred by limitation, cannot be
accepted. The respondent lost her family pension benefits from 1977 to 1999 as
a result of the delay from her part to claim the same in time. No one else is
adversely affected by that. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the
contention of the petitioners and in that view we agree with the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal granting family pension to the respondent.
In the result the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
JUDGE.
mt/