CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6530 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India INDUPARI DEVI WIFE OF LATE DWARIKA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARAMPUR, P.O. NAYA MOHAMMANDPUR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (ARRAH) P.S. KOILPUR Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF RAILWAY RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. SENIOR SECURITY COMMISSIONER, R.P.F. HEAD QUARTER AT KHARAGPUR, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, P.O. KHARAGPUR DISTRICT MIDNAPUR (WEST BENGAL) 3. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY CALCUTTA – 43. 4. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, CALCUTTA – 43. 5. SECURITY OFFICER (R ) KHARAGPUR, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY. ----------- For The Petitioner : BINAY KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE For The Respondent : ASHOK KUMAR KESHRI, ADVOCATE P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA Shailesh Kr. Sinha,J The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 10.06.2004, as contained in Annexure- 5, whereby the claim for payment of death-cum- retirement gratuity (DCRG) was declined by rejecting his representation filed pursuant to the order dated 4th of November 2003, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11700 of 2003, vide Annexure - 4. 2. Through an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 6497 of 2010 filed on 06.05.2010, 2 further prayer has been made for directing the payment of family pension with arrears and interest. 3. The short relevant facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner namely, Late Dwarika Singh was initially appointed as an Ex- RPP personal in the Railway, however, on re-organization of the RPF (Railway Protection Force), appointed afresh on 17.04.1952 as RPF Constable (Rakshak). However, after qualifying a period of 13 years and three months of service, he expired on 17th of July 1965. The service of the deceased employee with respect to retiral dues was governed by the State Railway Provident Funds (contributory and special contribution to the provident fund dues). Upon death of the employee, the widow (petitioner) was paid the admissible amount of the special contribution to provident funds (SCPF) dues, as also the State Railway provident fund dues. The amount were paid in the year 1965 itself. Thereafter, the matter was closed . Petitioner, however, for the first time filed a writ petition in this court vide C.W.J.C. No. 9937 of 1994 claiming settlement dues and pensionary benefits. The said writ application was withdrawn to enable the petitioner to file representation before the authority concerned. Petitioner, thereafter however, filed several writ petitions followed by contempt applications alleging 3 non-compliance of the order. One of such writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 12134 of 1999, this court vide order dated 20th of July 2000 (Annexure-2) allowed the writ application of the petitioner with regard to claim for death-cum-retiral dues in terms of the order dated 08.05.2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6659 of 1999 (Annexure-1) with a direction that the amount already paid by way of Special contributory funds be adjusted. The petitioner was accordingly paid the ex-gratia monthly payment with effect from 01.01.1986 in terms of the government notification no. 04/1/1987-P&PW(PIC) dated 13th of June 1988 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Pension and Pensions Welfare ) vide Annexure - H to the supplementary counter affidavit in respect of the widow and dependent children of the deceased employee who were governed by the contributory provident fund benefits and had ceased from service prior to 01.01.1986 either due to retirement or death and also keeping into consideration the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12134 of 1999 read with the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6659 of 1999 as contained in Annexures 2 and 1 respectively. The due interest as directed by this court was paid through cheque as mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure-5). The claim of the petitioner 4 for payment of DCRG was again considered pursuant to the order dated 04.11.2003, of this court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11700 of 2003 which upon consideration was found not admissible and accordingly rejected by the impugned order. The respondents through their counter affidavit followed by supplementary counter affidavits have supported the impugned order dated 10.06.2004 as contained in Annexure- 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled to receive DCRG as also the family pension claimed through the aforementioned interlocutory application no. 6497 of 2010 dated 06.05.2010. He further submits that non- payment of the claim for DCRG runs counter to the orders of this court and as such, respondents deserve to be directed for making the aforesaid payment. The petitioner also claims that she should be paid family pension notwithstanding whether her husband exercised the option or not for becoming the member of pension scheme. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, learned counsel for the respondent submits that admittedly all the admissible dues were paid to the petitioner in the year 1965 itself. However, on coming into force the notification dated 13.06.1988 vide Annexure - H issued 5 by the concerned department of the Central Government with respect to such Railway employees who retired prior to 01.01.1986 and were entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund scheme as such, ex-gratia monthly payment was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner alongwith arrears which were paid with effect from 01.01.1986 with increase in the amount of monthly payment from time to time as admissible under the rules. It is further submitted that a similar matter was agitated before the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC page 1782 , the Apex Court approved the cut of date for exercising the option. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions for grant of ex-gratia monthly payment to widow or dependent of the deceased employee who were not included in the normal pension scheme for want of exercise of option by the employee concerned. Accordingly as per the above notification dated 13.06.1988, as also the order of this court, petitioner has been sanctioned ex-gratia monthly payment with increase in the amount from time to time admissible under the rules. The petitioner as such, has received all her dues including the ex-gratia monthly payment with arrears and interest as directed by this court. Accordingly, it was submitted that this writ 6 application deserves to be dismissed. It was also submitted that petitioner continued to file writ applications and contempt applications in this court even though, this court did not allow the claim of the petitioner for payment of DCRG. The claim of the petitioner for family pension was claimed through an amendment application filed on 06.05.2010 which is also not admissible for the reasons that she is only entitled to ex-gratia monthly payment and receiving the same. 6. Considering the rival submission of the parties and their respective pleadings, it is an admitted position that the husband of the petitioner Late Dwarika Singh died in the year 1965 from the post of Constable, RPF and the admissible death-cum-retiral dues were paid in the year 1965 itself. Petitioner for the first time filed a writ application in the year 1994 vide C.W.J.C. No. 9937 of 1994 which was disposed of as withdrawn by order dated 12.05.1995 so as to enable the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for redressal of her grievances. Thereafter, petitioner continued to file writ petition followed by contempt application agitating the same claim, however, this court in none of the writ applications directed for payment of DCRG despite filing contempt application for the alleged violation of the orders. On perusal of the order dated 7 24th of April 2003 in M.J.C. No. 2774 of 2000 as contained in Annexure-3, it would appear that this court did not accept the claim for payment of DCRG taking into consideration that the petitioner was receiving the ex- gratia monthly payment. This court also did not accept the submission of the petitioner that there was any order for payment of DCRG and found that the authority did not commit any contempt, however, liberty was given to the petitioner to raise her claim with respect to the DCRG in an appropriate proceeding before any other appropriate forum. It appears that the petitioner did not agitate the matter as per the liberty given by this court however, filed a fresh writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 11700 of 2003 which was disposed of by general direction with analogous cases by order dated 04.11.2003 (Annexure- 4). The petitioner filed representation on 14.04.2004 pursuant to the aforesaid order which on detail consideration with good reasons has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 10.06.2004 (Annexure-5) declining the claim for DCRG, as also the pension on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was not under the pension scheme rather he was entitled to the payment of contributory provident fund. Petitioner was paid ex-gratia monthly payment as per the Government notification dated 13.06.1988 8 (Annexure-h) allowing the payment of ex-gratia monthly payment to the widow/eligible family members of the deceased employee who had not exercised the option which was also approved by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. Union of India (supra) which was also taken into consideration by this court in its order dated 08.05.200 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6659 of 1999 (Annexure-1) as also the writ application filed by the petitioner vide C.W.J.C. No. 12134 of 1999 disposed of by order dated 20.07.2000 (Annexure-2) in terms of the aforesaid order dated 08.05.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 6659 of 1999. 7. Thus, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions referred to the above, I do not find any merit in this application. The writ application, accordingly, stands dismissed. No cost. Patna High Court The 22nd December 2010 A.F.R/Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)