CAT orders release of benefits, says 35 -year delay ‘painful ordeal’

Srinagar, Oct 27: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Srinagar has expressed “dismay” over the tribulations an octogenarian woman underwent for not getting family pension after her husband, who was working in J&K Handloom Development Corporation (JKHDC) as sentry, died in service before thirty five years ago.

A bench presided over by Judicial Member, M S Latif, held it “sad and painful ordeal” that Hajra Begum, 80, wife of late Abdul Gani Bhat, had been deprived of her legitimate due particularly when, it said, right to pensionary benefits are held to be property in terms of the Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India.

In her plea, Hajra submitted that her husband was working as a sentry in the JKHDC Industries and Commerce Department, Corporation, who died in harness on November 11, 1988.

Hajra through her counsel Javaid Hamid contended that being the spouse of Bhat she was entitled to be sanctioned and granted family pension by the Managing Director (MD) of JKHDC as per the rules and regulations governing the Corporation.

“The applicant being the first beneficiary was entitled to the family pension in order to sustain her life. The applicant has been approaching the respondents for release of her family pension to which reference is made in SRO 138 of 2016, which was an amendment made to Article 240-A (viii) of the CSRs”, the counsel argued.

Disposing of her plea, the tribunal asked the authorities to consider within six weeks the release of the family pension Hajra is entitled to.

The court also asked the applicant ( Hajra) to cooperate with the respondents( authorities) as and when required so that her case pending for 35 years was disposed of expeditiously.

“Before parting it has become expedient in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to direct the Managing Director, J&K

Handloom Development Corporation Ltd to keep the registry of the Court aware about the day to day compliance of the judgment,” the tribunal said while disposing of the plea.

However, the tribunal made it clear that in case the MD of the Corporation failed to comply with its directions about keeping the Court aware about the disposal of the case, the same would warrant initiation of proceedings against him.

The Court said this while relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment wherein the apex court has held that "salaries and pensions are "rightful entitlements" of government employees and in case of delay, they should be paid with interest at an appropriate rate".

The tribunal noted that “had the respondents (authorities) responded to the applicant’s representations and the legal notice served upon them, filing of the instant O.A.( plea before CAT) could have been avoided as they were the first responder.

“At least, the applicant had a right to know as to why the applicant has been denied her family pension for the past 35 years,” the tribunal said.

The Court noted that if despite repeated requests and representations, the respondents (authorities) failed to adhere to their statutory duty, it said: “Undoubtedly, they are liable to be saddled with interest and also to be dealt with in accordance with the law”.

The Court also made it clear that “pension is a social welfare measure whereby socio-economic justice has to be rendered and is a safeguard of old age so that the pensioner is not left in lurch.”