PENSION - Undue delay in verifying date of birth for additional family pension and failure to provide duplicate PPO is arbitrary.

The applicant, Kaushilya Devi, is the legally wedded wife of Late Ram Roop Tiwari, who was employed in the Postal Department and passed away on November 24, 1975.

She has been continuously receiving family pension for approximately 48 years.

Upon attaining the requisite age, she became entitled to the benefit of additional quantum of family pension and sought its grant, along with a duplicate PPO number, from the postal authorities.

Subsequent correspondence between the Senior Post Master, Azamgarh, and the accounts office for clarification regarding the applicant's date of birth and PPO led to delays.

The respondents denied the claim, citing the non-availability of the original PPO and service records, and a discrepancy in the applicant's date of birth as reflected in two Aadhaar cards (01.01.1935 vs. 23.12.1912 based on the Kutumb Register extract).

The applicant clarified in her Rejoinder Affidavit that the incorrect date of birth was only in one earlier Aadhaar Card, which has since been corrected, and that her PAN Card, Kutumb Register, and other government records consistently show her date of birth as 23.12.1912.

She also furnished an affidavit affirming her correct date of birth.

1. Whether the respondents can deny the benefit of additional quantum of family pension to the applicant on the ground of alleged discrepancy in her date of birth or non-availability of the original PPO and service records.

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to release the additional quantum of family pension and issue a duplicate PPO within a reasonable time, overriding administrative and documentary deficiencies.

Pension is a valuable right enforceable in law, not a bounty, as held in *Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar*, (1971) 2 SCC 330.

Pension is a measure of socio-economic justice, and its provisions must receive a liberal construction, as reiterated in *D.S. Nakara v. Union of India*, (1983) 1 SCC 305.

Pension is property under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be withheld except by authority of law, as established in *State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava*, (2013) 12 SCC 210.

Beneficial legislations concerning pension, especially for super-senior citizens, require liberal interpretation to advance social security, as observed in *Virendra Dutt Gyani v. Union of India*, WP(C) No. 4224/2016.

The procedure for correction/change of date of birth in the PPO is governed by O.M. No. 1/23/2012-P&PW(E) dated 13.09.2012, which allows the Head of Department to make changes upon satisfactory documentary proof and fulfillment of conditions.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant is a family pensioner continuously receiving pension for decades and that additional quantum is age-linked.

It found the respondents' impediment of an alleged date of birth discrepancy insufficient, noting that the applicant provided documentary evidence like the Kutumb Register and PAN Card, and an affidavit, affirming her date of birth as 23.12.1912.

The mere existence of a previously incorrect Aadhaar Card, since rectified, could not be a ground to indefinitely withhold a statutory pensionary benefit.

The Tribunal emphasized that the maintenance of service records is the department's responsibility, and the applicant, a super senior citizen, cannot be penalized for administrative lapses or hyper-technical grounds.

Citing *Deokinandan Prasad* and *D.S. Nakara*, the Tribunal affirmed pension as a valuable right and a measure of socio-economic justice deserving liberal construction.

While acknowledging the need for verification per O.M. dated 13.09.2012, the Tribunal, relying on *State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava*, stated that such verification cannot be indefinitely prolonged.

Insistence on an original PPO from 1975, despite supporting documents and the applicant's advanced age (stated to be over 110 years), was deemed a hyper-technical approach inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution.

The respondents are directed to provide the applicant with the benefit of additional quantum of family pension and to allot/issue a duplicate copy of the PPO number, in accordance with the rules, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There shall be no order as to costs.