WP(C) 6484/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE TMR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) The petitioners, who claim to be the daughter and son respec tively of Hav. C.K. Barman (since deceased) seek the intervention of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia for an appropriate writ and/or direction to the respondents to grant them family pension in terms of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereafter referred to as the ’Rules’). 2 I have heard Mr KK Mahanta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr R Isl am, Advocate for the petitioners and Ms B.Das, leaned Central Govt. Standing Co unsel for the respondents. 3. The pleaded facts in brief would be necessary to comprehend th e cases of the parties. According to the petitioners, their father was an emplo yee of the Army under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He retired i n the year 1991. On his death in 1993, he left behind the following heirs and le gal representatives : Name Sex Age Relation 1.Smti Arati Bala Barman Female 42 Yrs. Wife(widow) 2.Miss Pratibha Barman Female 14 Yrs Daughter 3.Miss Dipika Barman Female 11 Yrs Daughter 4.Mrs Pranita Barman Female 9 Yrs Daughter 5. Sri Gautam Barman Male 9 Yrs Son 6.Miss Rekha Barman Female 9 Yrs Daughter Subsequent thereto, the respondent authorities sanctioned the family pension to their mother Arati Bala Barman which she drew till the year 1996. On her remarr iage , the same was stopped she having been rendered disentitled under the Rules . Their elder sister Smti Pratibha Barman next stepped into the line in receiv ing the family pension. After availing the same for some time, she also became disentitled following her marriage. Their next elder sister Dipika Barman having attained 25 years of age and also married was disqualified from receiving t he family pension. Ultimately their next sister, Smti Rekha Barman had also marr ied. According to the petitioners, therefore, in terms of the Rules, they , who are still unmarried and below 25 years of age are qualified to be released the family pension under the Rules. Together with an affidavit dated 6.6.2007 swor n before the District Magistrate, Nagaon to the said effect a representation dat ed 7.6.2007 in the meantime has been submitted by them before the Principal Co ntroller, Defence Accounts(Pension), Allahabad for releasing the family pension to them. It is alleged that the same has not yet been acted as on date. Their reminder before the appropriate authority also failed to evoke any response. The y have also referred to an Office Memorandum dated 21.7.1999 in alignment with the Rules in support of their claim. The petitioners have prayed for judicial i ntervention for redress. According to them, they satisfy the requirements as mandated by Rule 54 of the Rules to be qualified for the family pension thereun der. 4. The respondents in their counter while admitting the facts pertain ing to disentitlement of the mother and the other sisters of the petitioners hav e questioned the tenability of their claim for family pension on the following counts - (1) Their names do not find place in the service records of the deceased as his daughter and son . (2) There is a discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioners as furni shed by them. (3) Their father having claimed to have undergone sterilization on 10.3.1‘98 3 for which he had been granted special increment, the petitioners could not ha ve been begotten by him in the normal course of things. 5. The respondents have further denied the allegation of non disposal of the petitioners’ representation . According to them, the same had been disposed of on 9.8.2007 wherein necessary clarifications were sought for from the petitio ners with regard to their date /year of birth. The answering respondents have maintained that the petitioners having failed to provide the necessary inform ation as required, their claim for family pension in the facts and circumstance s of the case is wholly unsustainable. 6. Mr Mahanta while reiterating the facts pleaded in the writ pet ition has emphatically urged that as the petitioners are qualified in terms of R ule 54 , their mother and the elder sisters because of their marriage being ex cluded from the benefits thereof, the impugned action on the part of the respon dent authorities is without any justification and therefore, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to redress their grievance. 7. Ms Das on the other hand, has submitted that as the facts bearing on the petitioners’ entitlement for the pension are neither admitted by the re spondents, nor proved by the petitioners, their claim is misconceived and ther efore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. According to her, as disputed que stions of facts are involved, this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary j urisdiction would not embark upon an enquiry therein. On that count as well, th e claim is liable to be negated, she urged. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a considerat ion of the pleaded facts , I am of the view ,having regard to the nature of the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the relief prayed for cannot be readily granted in the instant case. Though there is no wrangle at the Bar w ith regard to the applicability of Rule 54 of the Rules on the issue of family p ension as claimed by the petitioners , having regard to the pre conditions presc ribed thereby, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the disputed facts precipita ted by the rival stands of the parties, ought to be first scrutinized. As the petitioners’ claim for family pension under the Rules would be contingent on t he confirmation that they are the children of the deceased and satisfy the con ditions of eligibility as ordained by Rule 54 of the Rules, an enquiry into the facts bearing thereon is indispensably necessary. On the basis of the materials on record, having regard to the constraints in the scope of the scrutiny of th is Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is therefore felt ap propriate in the facts and circumstances to remand the matter to the respondents for enquiry and a fresh decision. Ordered accordingly. 9. Consequently, the petitioners would present themselves before the P ersonnel Officer, 222 ABOD, C/o 99 APO on 24.09.2008. The authority abovenamed w ould afford them all reasonable opportunities of establishing their claim in t erms of the observations made hereinabove as well as the requirements of the Rul es as well as relevant executive instructions and administrative guidelines. Dep ending of the outcome of the process, appropriate orders would be passed. Needle ss to say, that the decision taken would be communicated forthwith to the petit ioners in writing. The petitioners would cooperate with the exercise as ordered and if it is done, the same would be completed within a period of three(3) mont hs from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.