Subhash Vs. Managing Director, Delhi Transport Corporation | Case No. 4/991/2015-Wel./CD/1374-1375 | Dated: 18.03.2019

In the Court of State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

25- D, Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2

Phone-011-23216002-04, Telefax: 011-23216005,

Email: comdis.delhi@nic.in

[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]

Case No. 4/991/2015-Wel./CD/1374-1375                              Dated: 18.03.2019

In the matter of:

Sh. Subhash,

199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur,

New Delhi-110003.                                                ................ Complainant

                                           Versus                          

Managing Director,

Delhi Transport Corporation,

DTC Headquarter,

I.P. Estate,

New Delhi-110002.                                                  ………...…Respondent

Date of Order:       08.03.2019

                                                          Order

          The above name complainant, a person with 100% locomotor disability (both lower limbs & spine affected) and a wheel chair user,  vide his unsigned complaint dated 10.03.2015 received from the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities vide letter dated 14.05.2015, submitted that he is the resident of 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.  His father, Sh. Chattar Singh was a driver in DTC and was receiving pension after retirement.  After his death, his wife and the complainant’s mother Smt. Kashmiri Devi was in receipt of family pension.  His mother also expired on 09.01.2014.  After her death, he applied for family pension and submitted all the documents such as ration card, election ID card, disability certificate etc.  showing him to be the son of Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi.  He also submitted an affidavit to this effect.  However, DTC has rejected his application on the ground that the complainant’s name is not available in their record showing him as son of late Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi.  He requested that DTC be directed to give family pension to him. 

2.       The complaint was taken up with the respondent vide notice dated 01.06.2015.  The respondent vide letter dated 10.06.2015 submitted that name of Sh. Subhash was not mentioned in Form No. 3 (details of family) submitted by Sh. Chattar Singh, Ex. Driver, T.No. 11825.  In the year 1993, after the death of Sh. Chattar Singh, Smt. Kashmiri Devi also did not mention the name of Sh. Subhash in Form no. 14, (details of family).  Neither Sh. Chattar Singh nor Smt. Kashmiri Devi had given in writing till their death that Sh. Subhash was dependent on them.  The case was referred to Law Department and the Standing Counsel of DTC has opined that “Sh. Subhash is not the disabled son of the deceased who can claim family pension after the death of the pensioner/family pensioner”.  In view of this, the complainant’s request for grant of family pension has not been accepted and he has been informed vide letter dated 05.08.2014.

3.       The then Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities heard the parties and some documents like photocopy of General Power of Attorney relating to management etc of property no. 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi notarised on 13.09.2007 in Tis Hazari Court, ration card, voter card of Smt. Kashmiri Devi and electricity bill which indicated that the complainant is the son of late Sh. Chattar Singh, were forwarded to the respondent for necessary action.  In response, Sr. Manager (Admn.) Pension vide letter dated 03.09.2015 submitted as under:

“Sir

Kindly refer to your letter No. 4/991/2015-Wel./CD/928 dated 23-07-2015 regarding granting family pension to Sh. Subhash, r/o 199, Aliganj, Kotla Mubark Pur, New Delhi being 100% disability.

In this connection it is stated that Sh. Chattar Singh, Ex. Driver, P. T. No. 11825 submitted his pension claim form in the year in 1993 where he declared surviving family members as Smt. Kashmiri Devi- wife and Sh. Rajesh-Son, age-17 years. He expired on 12-03-2009. After the death of Sh. Chattar Singh his wife Smt. Kashmiri Devi claimed the family pension by submitting the required papers/forms on 26-03- 2009. She declared the surviving family members in the pension form as herself only.  Thus neither Sh. Chattar Singh nor Smt. Kashmiri Devi mentioned the name of Sh. Subhash in pension forms (form nos. 3 & 14) photocopies of the forms are attached at annexure-I & H.

After the death on 09-01-2014 of Smt. Kashmiri Devi, Sh. Subhash has stated his claim for family pension on 12-05-2014 being 100% disabled.   In the above situation CCS Pension Rule 54 indicates as under:-

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISION

"(6) Procedure for payment of family pension to handicapped children-Representations have been received that in such cases difficulties are experienced on account of the fact that the disability of the child is not mentioned in the details contained in the PPO.   In order to expedite sanction of family pension in such cases, the following procedure is prescribed.

Where the names of eligible children have not been mentioned in the PPO for various reasons like the pension was sanctioned prior to 1-1-1990, the child is a post-retiral one or post-retiral manifestation of disability of the child, the pensioner. If he so desires, can furnish a list of eligible children to the pension sanctioning authority, inter alia, indicating whether any child is handicapped or not. The receipt of this list may be acknowledgement by the pension sanctioning authority, mentioning the details of the eligible children taken on record. This acknowledgement may be preserved by the members of the family of the pensioner for production at the time of submission of claim for family pension in their own turn to the pension sanctioning authority.  In case of mentally retarded children or minor who would draw pension through a guardian, the responsibility of producing this acknowledgement will devolve on the guardian.  The production of acknowledgement will, however, not be a pre-condition to the processing of claims for family pension.

(7) Spouse of the deceased pensioner can furnish details of eligible children-

Representations have been received about making eligible the spouse to furnish the details of eligible children, including handicapped children to the pension sanctioning authority where the same was not furnished by the employer/pensioner.

The matter has been considered in this Department and it has been decided to allow the spouse of the deceased pensioner/Government servant, if the details of such children were not furnished by the latter, to furnish the details of eligible children to the pension sanctioning authority as it will help in settling pension cases". Photocopy of the relevant rules/decision is at Annex-III.

In the instant case it does not matter whether Sh. Subhash is son of Sh. Chattar Singh/Smt. Kashmiri Devi or not, rather it is important that neither pensioner Sh. Chattar Singh nor his spouse family-pensioner Smt. Kashmiri Devi furnished the name of Sh. Subhash for the purpose of family pension with the sanctioning authority till their last breath which was compulsory as per Rule as mentioned above.

Keeping in view of above Sh. Subhash is not eligible for family pension as per Rules.

Yours faithfully

Encl.:-As above.

(Raj Kr. Singh)

Sr.Mgr.(Admn.) Pension”

4.       Another hearing was scheduled on 04.09.2017 and the respondent vide letter dated 24/28.08.2018 submitted that in a similar case, Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed an OA 1934/2014 of Sh. Pradeep Kumar vide the following order:

 “I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records.  It is crystal clear that the pensioner late Shri Amar Nath has not declared the applicant as his family member in the prescribed Form-3.  Besides his wife late Smt. Bimla Devi Verma, the pensioner had declared Miss Renu Lata Verma (daughter) as a member of his family in terms of Rule-54 of the Pension Rules.  Even late Smt. Bimla Devi Verma in her application for the family pension had not indicated the applicant as her dependent.  In these circumstances, I have no option except to hold the view that the applicant is not a dependent of the pensioner late Shri Amar Nath and hence his request for grant of family pension in terms of Rule-54 of the Pension Rules cannot be considered.

2.         In the conspectus of the discussions in the foregoing paras.  I find that the OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.”

5.       Sh. Amit, who claimed to be the nephew of Sh. Subhash appeared and submitted that Sh. Subhash cannot even sit and therefore he had appeared on behalf of the complainant in the hearing on 04.09.2017. 

6.       The complainant has submitted the following documents to establish that he is the son of Sh. Chattar Singh, resident of 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi: 

i)             A copy of voter ID card DL/01/004/258282 issued on 02.04.2014 in the name of Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh.
ii)            A copy of ration card no. APL42061463 issued on 03.12.2009 in the name of Smt. Kashmiri Devi w/o late Sh. Chattar Singh showing Sh. Subhash as the s/o late Sh. Chattar Singh born in 1974 among the eight family members.
iii)           Copy of the certificate of disability no. 3738/PtMMMH/1685 dated 20.06.2012 issued to Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh age 38 years issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital, New Delhi.
iv)          An affidavit of Sh. Subhash duly Notarised on 27.08.2014 affirming that Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh is a person with 100% disability. He is not doing any labour work/Govt. employee or self employed.  His annual income from all sources including his family is nil.  He has not taken any pension from Delhi Govt., MCD or NDMC or any other Govt. sector.
v)            A copy of General Power of Attorney executed on 13.09.2007 by Smt. Kashmire Devi w/o Sh. Chattar Singh appointing  Sh. Mukesh Kumar s/o Sh. Chattar Singh, Sh. Subhash Kumar s/o Sh. Chattar Singh, Sh. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Chatter Singh as a lawful legal general  attorneys  in respect of the property measuring 200 Sq. Yards situated in 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
vi)          An electricity bill dated 13.05.2015 in the name of Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh.
vii)         The School Leaving Certificate no. 11/170 dated 12.10.2017 in respect of Sh. Subhash s/o Sh. Chattar Singh showing that his name appeared at 3543 of the Admission Register.  His date of birth is shown as 20.01.1975 and he was studying in class 5A of that school upto 30.04.1985.

7.       The above papers do indicate that Sh. Subhash is the son of late Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi. 

8.       As per Form 3 (details of family) submitted by Sh. Chattar Singh on 03.03.1993, the details of the members of family include sons below 20 years of age.  The complainant in 1993 as per date of birth in the School Leaving Certificate was 18 years.  His name should therefore have been mentioned in Form 3 by Sh. Chattar Singh.  It is also observed from Form 3 that it was filled by someone else who mentioned the name of the younger son Sh. Rajesh, age 17 years only alongwith the name of Smt. Kashmiri Devi.  Sh. Chattar Singh only signed the form.  It seems that Sh. Chattar Singh was not aware about the provisions and implications of not mentioning the name of his elder son Sh. Subhash in Form 3.  There is also nothing to show that he was informed about it by the Personnel Branch of respondent organization.  It should also be noted that the Form 3 submitted by the respondents is in English and not in Hindi.  Smt. Kashmiri Devi did not mention the name of any of her children in Form no. 14 although there was no restriction of age or dependent members of the family.  Apparently, the said form was also filled by someone else.  Therefore, linking such an important matter as the admissibility of family pension to such documents/information which were not filled up with proper and adequate knowledge and care cannot be justified.

9.       After hearing the parties, it was felt that the very purpose of allowing life time family pension to the children with disabilities of govt. employees would be defeated if the benefit is denied merely because the parents, before their demise, did not mention their name in the service document as dependent family members.  Such omissions by lower level functionaries in the organizations are common due to ignorance about the rules and the stigma attached to disability.  Furthermore, there is nothing to show that late Sh. Chattar Singh was made aware about the provision of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.  Moreover, Rule 54 of the Pension Rules does not require such a person to be dependent on the pensioner as Explanation—6 below Sub Rule 6 clarifies, quote, “Disabled sibling shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government servant if their income is less than the minimum family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of this rule and dearness relief thereon” unquote. The complainant was therefore advised to produce original documents like birth certificate/certificate from the school vide record of proceedings dated 04.09.2017.

10.     The complainant vide his unsigned letter received on 08.11.2017 submitted the school leaving certificate authenticated by Ms. Suman, Head Mistress, Primary Wing Lodhi Road.  Vide her email dated 24.12.2018, Ms. Suman informed that the attached certificate dated 12.10.2017 is the copy of TC of Subhash as per the record of the school.  

11.     The Assistant Accounts Officer and Personal Assistant of this Court were also deputed to visit the complainant at 199, Ali Ganj, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi on 11.02.2019.  As per their report, they found Sh. Subhash lying on a cot and was not in a position to go even to wash room by himself.  The documents showed by him indicated him to be son of Sh. Chattar Singh. 

12.     The following provisions made in the rules from time to time indicate the need for expansive interpretation of the socially beneficial provisions in their application so as to achieve the objective for which these have been made:

i)             Dispensing with the condition of manifestation of the disability of children before retirement or the death in harness of the Govt. servant for grant of family pension for life. (GOI decision no. (7) below rule 54 under OM no 1/80/89-P&PW(C) dated 19.02.1990).

ii)            Admissibility of family pension to a post retiral child with disability or post retiral manifestation of disability of the child, whose name is not mentioned in the PPO.  The complainant is a case of post retiral manifestation of disability.  (GOI decision no. (7) below rule 54 under OM no 1/80/89-P&PW(C) dated 19.02.1990).

iii)           Doing away with the requirement of producing acknowledgement furnishing the name of the child with disability by the guardians in respect of mentally retarded child or minor as a pre-condition to process the claims for family pension.  (GOI decision no. (7) below rule 54 under OM no 1/80/89-P&PW(C) dated 19.02.1990).

13.     Further more, keeping the objective of the provision for family pension for life to the children with disabilities in view, its admissibility cannot be dependent on or dictated by the desire of the parents/pensioner/ family pensioner.  It is his/ her disability that entitles him/ her to the family pension for life.  The competent authority to sanction the pension therefore should ensure the following:

(i)       that the person in question is the disabled son/daughter of the Govt. servant/pensioner. (Second proviso to Rule 54 (6) refers);

(ii)      that he/she has been certified to be unable to earn his/her living due to disability. {Condition No (iv) below Rule 54(6) (v) refers};

(iii)     that his/ her income is less than the minimum family pension admissible and the dearness relief  thereon. (Explanation No. 6 below Rule 54 (6) refers).

14.     After going through the relevant rules and the documents submitted by the parties as discussed in the preceding paragraphs and keeping in mind the objective of the provision for life time family pension to son/daughter with disability of a Govt. servant, I am of the view that denial of family pension to Sh. Subhash merely because Sh. Chattar Singh or his wife did not mention his name in the service documents is not justified and it will defeat the very purpose for which such a beneficial provision has been made. The complainant should therefore be allowed family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 unless the Competent Authority is convinced that the complainant is not the son of Sh. Chattar Singh and Smt. Kashmiri Devi and the documents submitted by him in support thereof are fake or his income is more than the minimum family pension admissible and the dearness relief thereon.

15.     It is therefore recommended that the Competent Authority in DTC should reconsider the matter and allow family pension to the complainant accordingly subject to the three conditions mentioned in para 13 (i), (ii) and (iii).  If considered necessary, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, Govt. of India may be consulted.   

16.     Action taken report on the above mentioned recommendation be submitted to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order as required under Section 81 of the Act.

17.     The complaint is disposed off.

18.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 07^th day of March, 2019.     

(T.D. Dhariyal)

             State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities