Bhanwar Kali Devi Vs. Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Case No. 120/1021/2018/02 /2339-2340 | Dated: 21.05.2019

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. 120/1021/2018/02 /2339-2340                     Dated: 21.05.2019

In the matter of:

Bhanwar Kali Devi,
N-9, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059                                                       ……Complainant

                                                 Versus

The Commissioner,
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Dr. SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002                                                        …..Respondent

Date of hearing: 15.05.2019

Present:             Sh. Krishan Kumar alongwith Sh. B.S. Yadav (Complainant)

                             Sh. Louis Daniel Kuzur (Admin. Officer) alongwith Sh. P.S. Rawat on behalf of the respondent

ORDER

          The above named complainant, a person with blindness vide her  application dated 13.12.2017 addressed to the Commissioner, North DMC with a copy to the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities requested for grant of senior scale to her husband Sh. P.S. Chaudhary, who retired as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 31.07.1995.  Brief facts of the case are as under:-

     i.           Her husband Sh. P.S. Chaudhary was appointed in the erstwhile MCD as Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 27.06.1961 in the scale of Rs. 180-300 which was revised to 425-700 w.e.f. 01.01.1973.

     ii.         He was further granted selection scale of Rs. 500-900/- w.e.f. 01.07.1976.

    iii.         He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) on current duty charge basis vide Office Order No. F.1(318)/EAI/Engg./90/87/1048 dt. 30.07.1990, during Current Duty charge he continued to draw his own pay scale of selection grade of J.E.(E) granted to him on 01.07.1976.

  iv.          He retired on 31.07.1995 in his own pay scale of Selection grade of J.E.(E) granted to him on 01.07.1976.

    v.          MCD’s circular dated 18.10.1994 stated that Junior Engineers who had completed more than 15 years of service in the grade of J.E(E) as on 01.01.1991 were to be considered in the higher scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1991. 

  vi.         Her husband had completed more than 29 years as on 01.01.1991 and was eligible for grant of senior scale.As per the complainant, he was also clear from the vigilance angle, but was granted the senior scale due to him w.e.f. 01.01.1991.

2.      The complainant was taken up with the respondent and an Action Taken Report by 10.05.2018 was sought vide this court letter dated 12.04.2018 followed by reminder dated 11.06.2018, a show cause notice dated 18.10.2018 and another reminder dated 08.01.2019.  As there was no response, a hearing was scheduled on 12.03.2019. 

3.      On 12.03.2019, Sh. Krishan Kumar, son of the complainant appeared and submitted that many of the juniors of his father were granted the higher scale w.e.f. 01.01.1991.  But his father was denied the same.  Consequently, his mother, who is a person with blindness is, not getting revised monthly family pension.  He further submitted that his mother has been representing to the Commissioner, North DMC but there has not been any response.  He requested that the family pension of his mother should be fixed as per the revised pay scale and all the arrears of pay, enhanced pension and revised family pension may be paid to her.  He produced the following family pension documents in support of the claim of his mother. 

                     i.        Letter No. D/660/EEE-III/2015-16 dated 11.09.2015 of EE.(Elec.).III, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, O/o the EE(E).III, M.C.(P) School, Moti Nagar (East) New Delhi.

                    ii.        Copy of representation dated 29.07.1998 of Late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary, Retd. AE(E) addressed to Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.

                  iii.        Copy of U.O. Note No. D/HE-I/Engg./Estt./99/3386 dated 10.06.1999 & 14.06.1999 to Addl. Commissioner (Engg.), MCD, Town Hall, Delhi.

4.      As none appeared on behalf of the respondent, Commissioner, North MCD was requested to personally look into the matter and next date of hearing was fixed on 12.04.2019.

5.      On 12.04.2019, Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, EE(Elect.), SDMC submitted that late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary was working as AR(E), Najafgarh Zone and was getting his salary and retirement dues from ACA (Engineering) under unified MCD.  His service book and the personal file are not in the Office of EE (Elect.), SDMC.  As per record, the same were sent to ACA (Engineering), North DMC on 19.09.1990.  The issue of grant of pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1991 therefore needs to be resolved by North DMC. 

6.      The representatives of the respondent who appeared after the hearing, were advised to sort out the matter and submit an action taken report by 01.05.2019 and the matter was fixed for hearing 15.05.2019.

7.      In compliance with the directions vide ROP dated 15.04.2019, Administrative Officer, Engineering Department (Headquarter), North DMC vide letter dated 09.05.2019, a copy of which has been sent to the complainant, hassubmitted that after trifurcation of erstwhile MCD,  the office of EE (Elect.)-III/ Moti Nagar falls under the jurisdiction of West Zone i.e. South DMC.  They have, therefore requested the personal file and service book of Sh. P.S. Chaudhary from the office of EE (Elect.)-III/ West Zone, where he was last posted before his retirement.  The Accounts Department (Pension), SDMC has also been requested to provide his complete file and supporting documents and sincere efforts are being made to obtain the relevant records.  It may take 06 to 07 months to finalize the case and 07 to 08 months time has been sought to complete the process of granting higher pay in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1991 to late Sh. Chaudhary. 

8.      The representatives of the respondent, who appeared for the hearing,stated that once the records are available,all efforts will be made to finalize the matter within the shortest of possible time. 

 

9.      Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Smt. Bhanwar Kali Devi, who appeared on her behalf, submitted that her mother is suffering from different diseases and remains in the hospital for about 10 days in a month.  They have written 14-15 letters to the concerned Department, but have not received any response.  He requested that the orders to finalize the case within 10 to 15 days should be passed. 

10.    From the interaction with the functionaries of North DMC and SDMC during the hearings of this case, it is observed that retrieval of old record may have been a challenge due to the fact that the offices for payment of salary of late Sh. Chaudhary and his deployment werestated to bedifferent and trifurcation of the erstwhile MCD may have contributed to it.  But the stalemate can not be allowed to continue indefinitely, as the complainant had submitted her representation on 05.05.2018 to SDMC and prior to that, Sh. Chaudhary had been representing to the concerned authorities.  Be that as it may, now that the responsible officers in whose possession the records are, have been identified, and keeping in view the situation of the complainant, the matter should be resolved on top priority.

11.    In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is recommended that fixation of pay of late Sh. Chaudhary, revision of his pension, revision of family pension of the complainant and payment of arrears of the pay/ pension/ family pension be finalized within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. 

12.    An Action Taken Report be submitted to this court as required under Section 81 of the Act.

13.    It is observed that a certificate that Smt. Bhanwar Kali Devi w/o Late Sh. P.S. Chaudhary has 100% visual disability, was issued by Prof. K.P.S. Malik, Addl. D.G. & HOD of Ophthalmology Safdarjung Hospital.  It bears the date of issue as 26^thday of March without mentioning the year.  The certificate is apparently very old and Sh. Krishan Kumar stated that she acquired blindness in the year 2008.  While there is no doubt about the disability of the complainant, Sh. Krishan Kumar is advised to contact and get a certificate of disability from any of the following 3 hospitals which are designated for issuing Certificate of disability for visual disability for West Delhi residents vide circular number F.No.24/Misc.Policy/Disability/DHS/ NHC/1039-45 dated 02.05.2019 of Health & Family Welfare (Department):

          (i) Deen Dayal Upadhya Hospital, Hari Nagar
          (ii) Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar
          (iii) Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel Hospital, Patel Nagar

14.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 21^thday of May, 2019.

                                                                                                (T.D.Dhariyal)
State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

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

S. Natarajan Vs. Medical Superintendent, Guru Nank Eye Centre | Case No. 4//1563/2017-Wel./CD/ 3675-76 | Dated: 02.01.2018

In the Court of Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities

National Capital Territory of Delhi

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

Phone-23216002-04, Telefax: 23216005

[Vested with power of Civil Court under the Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995]

Case No. 4//1563/2017-Wel./CD/ 3675-76                                Dated: 02.01.2018

In the matter of:

Sh. S. Natarajan

Surbhi, Akamkudi P.O.,

Nagiarkulangara(via)

Haripad, Alappuzha Distt.

Kerala-690513                                                                                …….... Petitioner     

                                                                 Versus

The Medical Superintendent

Guru Nanak Eye Centre

Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg

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

Date of Hearing: 12.12.2017

ORDER

                                                                                                        

 The above named complainant vide his complaint dated 03.01.2017 submitted that his wife Ms. T. Gopa Natarajan retired as ANS w.e.f. 30.09.2004 from Guru Nanak Eye Centre, Government of NCT of Delhi.  Her PPO No. is 702250-4-02194 dated 30.12.2014.  She expired on 30.12.2014 and the complainant is getting family pension.  He further submitted that as per the Government orders the permanently disabled son/daughter of a pensioner is eligible for family pension on the death of pensioner even after the marriage of siblings.  His son, Sh. Prasant Natarajan age 39 years has 40% permanent disability due to cerebral palsy as per the certificate of LNJP Hospital, New Delhi and T.D. Medical College and Hospital, Allepuza, Government of Kerala which were forwarded to the Sr. Accounts Officer, Special Cell, CPPO, Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi on 3^rd May, 2016 for grant of family pension to his son after he is no more.  The request was forwarded to LNJP Hospital.  Lastly, Administrative Officer, Guru Nanak Eye Centre, vide letter dated 29.10.2016 directed the complainant to personally visit his office with the relevant documents.  The complainant intimated him his inability to personally visit as he was 76 years old vide his letter dated 10.11.2016.  As he did not receive any communication, he requested this court to intervene and direct the concerned authorities to take necessary action.  The complaint was thus taken up with the respondent vide communication dated 18.09.2017.

2.     The respondent vide letter dated 11.10.2017 informed:

Quote: “With reference to your case no. 4/1563/2017-WEL/CD/1894-95 dated 18.09.2017 issued by Dy. Commissioner, State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.  In this regard it is to inform you that the case regarding grant of family pension to permanently disabled son of pensioner on her/his death dealt in this office.  Further it is also inform that this case has already been sent to Pay & Accounts Officer (Technical Cell), Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Cama Place and Dy. Controller of Accounts (Technical), Principal Accounts Office, Vikas Bhawan, ITO for clarification that pension will be granted to son of diseased person that is T. Gopa Natarjan (copy enclosed)”. Unquote

3.     As per reminder dated 06.10.2017 sent by the respondent to PAO (Technical Cell), CPAO, Government of India, CPAO was requested to clarify whether family pension to permanently disabled son of the complainant on his death can be given without Doctor’s medical certificate that he is not able to earn his livelihood.

4.      A hearing was scheduled on 12.12.2017.  During the hearing, the representatives of the respondent submitted that they had informed the complainant to submit a certificate as required under Rule 54(6)(iv) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which requires that the medical Board of a Government Hospital should certify that his son is not able to earn his livelihood vide letter No. F. (54)/GNEC/Pension/Ex-ANS/2016/6441 dated 11.10.2017. The said certificate has to be obtained from Medical Board of a Government Hospital of NCT of Delhi.  The complainant was also very clearly informed that on receiving the said certificate, family pension to his disabled son would be processed.  However, they have not received any medical certificate from the complainant so far.  They further submitted that they had also written to the Pay and Accounts Officer (Technical Cell), CPAO to clarify whether life time pension can be granted to a permanently disabled son of pensioner on his death irrespective of whether he is able to earn his livelihood.  CPAO vide their letter dated 16.11.2017 has informed that medical certificate is a pre-requisite for grant of family pension to permanently disabled child.  A copy of the letter dated 10.06.2017 to the complainant and CPAO’s letter dated 16.11.2017were taken on record during the hearing. 

5.    The complainant vide his e-Mail dated 08.12.2017 informed that he is not able to attend the hearing in Delhi.  He also mentioned that his Department namely Ministry of Defence, has already sanctioned family pension to his disabled son Sh. Prasant Natarajan based on the medical certificate which was submitted to the respondent.

6.    Sh. Chandrababu a friend of the complainant was contacted on his telephone which was shared by the respondents during the hearing.   He was informed about the need to submit the medical certificate under Rule 54 of the Pension Rules, 1972 to enable the competent authority to take a considered view and was requested to convey to the complainant to submit the requisite certificate to the respondent. 

7.     Later on, the complainant also telephoned and he was advised to get the certificate as required under the relevant pension rules and submit the same to the respondent at the earliest.  In response, the complainant vide his letter dated 14.12.2017 informed that TD Medical College, Medical Board has clarified verbally that they have a set language for issue of Medical Certificate and they cannot  issue a medical certificate as dictated by his Department.  He has further stated that he is permanently residing in Allapuzha District, Kerala and cannot approach other medical board as, according to Kerala Government orders, one has to approach the medical board of the concerned district where the individual is permanently residing.  The complainant has also enclosed an attested copy of the certificate of disability dated 12.08.2015 which he had submitted alongwith his complaint.  He has also submitted a certificate from Nakkada Mission Hospital, Thiruvallam, Kerala mentioning that Mr. Prasant Natarajan had been under the treatment of the hospital for epilepsy and psychosis since 21.04.2013 and he needs long term care, support and treatment.

8.   Rule 54 (6) (iv) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 under which a daughter/son with disability of a Government employee is entitled to life time family pension reads as under:

“Before allowing family pension for life to any such son or daughter, appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and same should be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Board comprising of Medical Superintendent (MS) or Principal or Director or Head of Institution or his nominee as Chairman and to other members, out of which atleast one shall be specialist in a particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child.”

9.      In the light of the provision of Rule 54 (6)(iv) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the complainant is advised to submit the required medical certificate from the competent Medical Board not necessarily from a Government Hospital in Delhi and submit to the respondent.  The concerned appointing authority/ Respondent is advised to take immediate action thereon and decide  grant of family pension for life to Sh. Prasant Natarajan after the death of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the medical certificate and ensure that the necessary entry in the PPO is made for the same. 

10.    The complaint is disposed off accordingly.

11.    Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 2nd day of January, 2018.

                (T.D. DHARIYAL)

Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities