Nimmakayala Padmavathi vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is eligible for family pension. While the respondents initially rejected the claim based on the absence of the petitioner's name in the retirement forms and her mother's disclosures, subsequent verification of the deceased employee's service records revealed a declaration by the father on 02.06.1965, identifying the petitioner as his daughter. This, coupled with the Family Member Certificate dated 22.11.2021 and relevant DOPT Office Memorandums, satisfied Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner was indeed the unmarried disabled daughter eligible for family pension. The Court noted that the respondents had issued a letter on 07.06.2024 requesting the petitioner to submit the required documents for processing her family pension. The Court directed the petitioner to submit all relevant documents within four weeks of receiving the order. Upon receipt, the respondents are to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. The principle established is that pension authorities should consider all available evidence, including subsequent declarations and certificates, to determine eligibility, especially for dependents with disabilities, and not solely rely on initial discrepancies in forms.

Facts

The petitioner, Nimmakayala Padmavathi, is the unmarried and 90% physically disabled daughter of a deceased Superintendent of Central Excise, late N. Thulasi Ram, who died on 23.10.2014. After her father's death, her mother received family pension until her demise on 26.09.2020. The petitioner applied for family pension on 25.02.2022, but her application was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on 21.03.2022, citing that her name was not mentioned in the family details provided by her father or mother. The petitioner had previously approached the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, which recommended approaching the Pension Sanctioning Authority. Despite this, her claim was rejected again. The respondents initially argued that the petitioner's name was not in the retirement forms and her relationship was not disclosed by her mother. However, upon further verification, it was found that the petitioner's father had declared her as his daughter in a letter dated 02.06.1965.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 3 in rejecting the petitioner's application for family pension is illegal and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of her 90% physical disability and unmarried status? 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider the petitioner's application for family pension based on subsequent evidence of her relationship with the deceased employee, despite initial discrepancies in submitted forms? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the rejection of her family pension application was illegal and arbitrary, violating her fundamental rights. She contended that as a 90% physically disabled and unmarried dependent daughter, she is eligible for family pension. She relied on the order from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities and the subsequent discovery of her father's declaration of her as his daughter. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents initially argued that the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the family details provided by her father at retirement or by her mother during her pension. They stated that the disability certificate was irrelevant to proving her relationship or inability to earn a livelihood. However, they later acknowledged that upon verification of service records, the petitioner's father had declared her as his daughter in a letter dated 02.06.1965 and that she was eligible for family pension.