Family Pension Clarification: Remand for Identity and Bonafides Verification

The applicant, Smt. Firoza Begum, claimed to be the widowed daughter of Late Sk. Hasen, a retired employee of Metal and Steel Factory, Ishapore.

Her father retired on April 30, 1986, and passed away on May 16, 1995.

Her mother, Smt. Suratan Bibi, who was receiving family pension, expired on October 24, 2015.

The applicant's husband died on July 10, 2005, and she claimed to be fully dependent on her father and mother's pension with no other source of income.

She applied for family pension, but the respondent authority rejected her prayer via a letter dated September 25, 2024 (Annexure A-10), citing a mismatch in her father’s name in the service records.

Previously, on November 12, 2016, the Deputy General Manager/Administration had informed her about this discrepancy, noting "Sk. Hasim" instead of "Sk. Hasen" in the service records and advised correction.

The applicant stated that her father's name was correctly recorded as Sk. Hasen in his Pension Certificate (Annexure-A/3) and bank passbook, despite being wrongly recorded as Sk. Hasim in the service discharge certificate.

The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the ex-employee's name was consistently recorded as "Sk. Hasim" in service records (Annexure-R/1), Pension Payment Order (Annexure-R/2), Corrigendum PPO (Annexure-R/3), last pay certificate, and service certificate (Annexure-R/4).

Furthermore, the family declaration submitted by Sk. Hasim at retirement did not include Smt. Firoza Begum.

The material on record did not show that the respondents conducted any inquiry to ascertain the applicant's credentials.

Whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the applicant's claim for family pension solely on the ground of a mismatch in her father's name in the service records?

Whether the respondent authority ought to have conducted an inquiry to ascertain the identity and bona fides of the applicant before making a decision on her prayer for family pension?

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to adjudicate grievances of public servants.

The decision-making process for family pension claims involves verification of identity and bona fides, and the principle of natural justice requires a fair inquiry when discrepancies arise.

The court noted that while the respondents highlighted consistent records of "Sk. Hasim" in official documents like the service book (Annexure-R/1), PPO (Annexure-R/2), and other certificates (Annexure-R/3, R/4), the applicant presented a savings bank passbook in the name of "Sk. Hasen," claiming both names referred to the same individual.

Crucially, the court found an absence of an inquiry by the respondents to verify the applicant's identity and bona fides.

Despite the discrepancy in names and the non-inclusion of the applicant in the ex-employee's family declaration, the court stressed that the respondents should have conducted a proper investigation before rejecting the family pension claim.

This suggests an implicit application of the principle that a substantive right, like pension, should not be denied without a thorough ascertainment of facts, especially when conflicting evidence is presented and the applicant claims to be an "illiterate widow" not well-conversant with procedures.

The court implied that simply pointing out discrepancies without attempting to resolve them through an internal inquiry constitutes an arbitrary and illegal stand.

The matter was remitted back to the Competent Respondent Authority, who was directed to conduct an inquiry to verify the identity and bona fides of the applicant, examine nominations for gratuity and family declarations, and consider any documents (such as legal heir or succession certificates) provided by the applicant.

The applicant was directed to cooperate fully and submit an affidavit stating the correct name of her father.

The respondent authority is required to complete the inquiry within eight weeks and communicate a reasoned and speaking order to the applicant regarding her family pension claim.

The original application was disposed of without costs.