IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5374 of 2007
Lalan Prasad Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry
of Defence, New Delhi
2. The Adjutant General of India, Claims, Integrated Head
Quarters of MOD (Army), New Delhi
3. The Officer of the Chief CDA (pension), Allahabad
4. The Commanding Officer, EME, Records, Secunderabad
5. The Commandant, Station Head Qtrs. Army, Ranchi
6. The Station Commander, Ex-Serviceman Helpline, State Head
Qtrs., Ranchi
7. G.O.C., 23 Infantry Division, Dipatoli Cant, Ranchi
8. Premlata Verma
9. Anand Kumar Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents 2 to 7: Mr. Faiz ur Rahman, CGC
---
6. 11.03.2010
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents 2 to 7.
As it appears, though respondents 8 and 9 have appeared through lawyer, but have
not filed their counter-affidavit and neither has any lawyer appeared on call.
2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the
concerned authorities of the respondents 2 to 7 to pay the petitioner ‘Dependent’s
Pension’ on the ground that he is the father of the ex-serviceman Lans Naik Awadhesh
Kumar and he was dependent upon the earnings of the deceased ex-serviceman due to
his having become invalid as a result of his physical ailment.
3. Counsel for the petitioner informs that on account of the fact that the petitioner
had donated his kidney to his ailing son, he has suffered prolonged illness and had to
remain dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is entitled to proportionate share of the amount of pension payable in the
account of the deceased ex-serviceman, as ‘Dependant’s Pension’ and in spite of repeated
demands, the respondents have been denying the same to the petitioner.
It is also informed that the respondents 8 and 9 who are the widow and son of the
deceased respectively, have been refusing to provide any maintenance to the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the respondents 2 to 7, while inviting attention to Annexure-A which
is a copy of the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission on grant of ordinary
family pension to parents, sons and daughters, informs that the family pension is payable
to the dependent parents of the ex-serviceman as well as to the widow and divorced
daughters. Such pension is also payable to the dependent son below the age of 25 years.
5. From the above facts,it appears that there is no reason why the petitioner who
claims to be the father of the deceased and was dependent upon the earnings of the
deceased, should not be paid a portion of the family pension.
6. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this application is disposed of
with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondents 2 to 7 to consider the
petitioner’s prayer for apportioning the amount of family pension in his share and to pay
his share thereof forthwith. The decision on the above issue should be taken by the
concerned authorities of the respondents 2 to 7 within one month from the date of receipt
/ production of a copy of this order and shall be effectively communicated to the
petitioner.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of at the stage of
admission itself.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/