The Supreme Court has directed the Railways to pay family pension arrears to a widow from the date of her husband’s death in 2000. The Court held that the arrears could not be restricted to the period from 2014 merely because the widow approached the tribunal later.
Family pension claim
Maya Banerjee’s husband, K.M. Banerjee, was a Leverman with the Railways. He died while in service on 12 November 2000.
Banerjee was living separately from her husband and was earning a livelihood through maid services in her neighbourhood. The Supreme Court noted that she was an illiterate woman and did not know about her husband’s service details or place of posting when he died.
Despite a Railway Board rule stating that disciplinary proceedings against an employee should be closed if the employee dies during the proceedings, the Railways dismissed her husband from service on 10 October 2001.
After learning about the dismissal, Banerjee challenged the order. Her appeal was rejected in 2012. She later sought settlement of her dues and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but her application was dismissed on limitation grounds.
She also filed a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding her husband’s date of death. In 2015, the court declared 12 November 2000 as the correct date of death.
Why did the Supreme Court allow arrears?
The High Court had granted Banerjee family pension but restricted it to 2014, when she first approached the CAT.
The Railways relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh. Under that judgment, arrears relating to recurring or successive wrongs are normally restricted to three years before the filing of a writ petition.
The Supreme Court, however, relied on its earlier judgment in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway. That case also concerned a widow’s claim for family pension.
The Court noted that S.K. Mastan Bee directly dealt with the family pension for a widow, while Tarsem Singh had not considered the earlier judgment.
The Court held that a Bench of equal strength cannot take a contrary view without referring the matter to a larger Bench. It therefore followed S.K. Mastan Bee and treated the contrary position in Tarsem Singh as per incuriam on this issue.
What does it mean for you?
The Court held that family pension is a valuable right and not a benefit that can simply be withheld.
It found that Banerjee was not responsible for the delay in pursuing her claim. The Supreme Court therefore directed the Railways to pay her family pension from 12 November 2000, along with 6% annual interest on the arrears.
The entire amount must be paid within three months.
