IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.368 of 2009 FULA KUNWAR wife of late Bindeshwari @ Bindeshwar Singh, resident of village + Post Rophutha,P.S. Nokha,District Rohtas … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the General Manager, North Railway, New Delhi 2. The Divisinal Railway Manager, North Railway,Divisional Office, New Delhi 3. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Northy Railway, New Delhi 4. The Divisional Personal Manager, North Railway, New Delhi 5. The Divisional Commercial Manager, North Railway, New Delhi 6. The Welfare Inspector, Ismaila(Haryana), North Railway … … Respondents For the petitioner: Mr. Om Prakash Singh For the respondents: Mr. Anil Singh ----------- 3. 26.2.2009 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature or certiorari for quashing the order dated 3rd of March, 2008 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 320 of 2007, whereby the petitioner’s prayer for grant of family pension has been declined. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner happens to be the mother of one Ram Govind 2 who was posted as Chief Booking Clerk in Northern Railway at Haryana. He died on 31.12.2003. She had three other sons also. She filed an application for grant of family pension but the same having not been granted approached the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal inter alia contending that she being wholly dependent on deceased son she is entitled for family pension. The Tribunal considered the plea of the petitioner and held that she is not wholly dependent on the deceased railway employee and, as such, not entitled for family pension. While doing so, the tribunal observed as follows: “The ld. Counsel for the respondents, Shri S.K.Simgj points out that the applicant was not fully dependent on the deceased railway employee. The deceased had never during his service period indicated in the nomination form that his mother was fully dependent on him. As per the official records in the declaration form for privilege pass and P.TO, the deceased employee had declared himself as a one member family. He had never availed of facility of railway pass in fvour of his mother. He also draws my attention to an affidavit filed by the applicant that she is wholly dependent on her grandson, Santosh Kumar Singh who was living with her. She was residing in her native village in Bihar and the deceased railway employee was living in Haryana. He says that there is no evidence that the applicant Fula Kunwar was fully dependent on the deceased nor any where the 3 deceased employee had mentioned her name in the declaration form. The ld. Counsel for the respondents draws my attention to Govt. of India’s order dated 21.7.1999(OM No. 45/61/97 P&P.W.) in which it is clearly clarified under what circumstances family pension can be claimed by a parent. This circular of the Govt. of India makes it very clear that family pension would be admissible only after it can be shown that the mother or father was wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he was alive. Shri S.K.Singh, ld. Counsel for the respondents also draws my attention to para 7 of the written statement in which one Sarvesh Kumar has claimed that he was an adopted son of the decreased Ram Govind and he had also claimed all the retrial-cum-death benefits. However, only when Fula Kunwar obtained the succession certificate from the District Court, Sasaram, he has been ignored and all the dues were paid to Fula Kunwar.” Mr. Om Prakash Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws our attention to the circular dated 21st of July, 1999( Annexure 5) and contends that as the deceased railway employee had not left behind a widow or eligible son or daughter, the petitioner who happens to be the mother is entitled to be given the family pension. Clauses (a) and (b) of the circular referred to above read as follows: “(a) The parents were wholly dependent on the Government Servant when he/she was alive. ( b) The Government Servant has not left behind a widow/widower eligible son or daughter or a widowed/divorced daughter, who 4 will have a prior claim to Family Pension in the order indicated.” From a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the petitioner shall be entitled for family pension only when it is established that she was wholly dependent on the Government Servant when he was alive. Mere absence of a widow or eligible son or daughter shall not entitle the petitioner for grant of family pension. The petitioner shall only be entitled for grant of family pension when it is found that she was wholly dependent on the Government Servant when he was alive. The Tribunal on appraisal of the materials came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not wholly dependent on the deceased employee. The aforesaid finding has been recorded on consideration of the relevant materials which could not be said to be illegal in any way. We find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Kanth ( C.K.Prasad, A.C.J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)