Sohan Singh served N. F. Railways, as a Sanitary cleaner. His service was confirmed with effect from 13.09.1971. Sole Respondent Munni Devi is the widow of late Sohan Singh and on 26.10.1997 Munni Devi made representation for grant of family pension.
On 26.11.2012, the matter was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. It was held that Munni Devi was sleeping over her rights and no proper explanation was given for the unresponsible delay in making claim. A Direction was made by the tribunal to consider the representation made by the Munni Devi.
The court finally disposed off the matter on 09.04.2013 with direction to the concerned Railway authorities to consider her case and to take a decision thereon in accordance with the law. In this order, it was also observed that a person's right to receive pension is a right in continuity and such a right cannot be said to have been barred by law.
The court also held that the refusal on the part on the tribunal to adjudicate upon the rights of Munni Devi was not justifiable in Law. On 26.03.2013 Railway authorities passed speaking order rejecting the claim of Munni Devi. Then on 03.02.2014 Munni Devi filed an affidavit to bring on record documents, on consideration of which the tribunal concluded that even if late Sohan Singh was placed under suspension, the operation of the order could not have subsisted beyond 1981. The Railway authorities submitted as regards the non-avalability of records, as a result of which family pension could not be settled. Finally; the direction to the railway authorities was given to disburse the post-retirement benefits including GPF and pension within the period of three months.
Further, on the part of petitioners herein, in order to effectuate the order of the tribunal, an enquiry was set in motion. During the course of the enquiry, the statement of SRI SANKAR CHANDRA DEY was recorded on 05.09.2014. He stated that " He had worked with late Sohan Singh and that late Sohan Singh remained absent from duty now and then and eventually he was removed from the service". On the basis of his statement, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the tribunal and also denying any liability to pay the family pension to Munni Devi.
The argument is that since late Sohan Singh was removed from service, there was no question for paying any retirement benefits and family pension to the widow.
In accordance with the argument; the court asked the petitioner to demonstrate the fact of removal of late Sohan Singh but the petitioner was not able to produce any evidence except the statement of Sankar Chandra Dey in order to support their argument.
JUDGEMENT
Finally, it was held by the Court that it is well-settled law that the burden of proof lies on the party if point is to be established. In the case, the issue was raised regarding the alleged fact that Sohan Singh was removed from his service.
The petitioner failed to satisfy the with the stand, they had taken. They failed to support their ground for denying to pay the pension and the post-retirement benefits with supporting documents.
Hence, the Court held that merely on the basis of the statement it could not be held that late Sohan Singh was removed from his service and thus the benefits to which Munni Devi is entitled, cannot be denied.
Therefore, the Court directed the petitioners to pay the pension and retirement benefits as due to respondent i.e. to the wife of late Sohan Singh who was confirmed employee of N.F. Railways.
It was directed that payment of family pension is to be made with effect from the period prior to three years from the date when the first application was instituted by Munni Devi before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati bench.
Hence, the present writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.