SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kushagra vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 5 November, 2019

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench

OA No. 1555/2018

Order reserved on : 17.10.2019
Order pronounced on: 05.11.2019

Hon’ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)

Kushagra, 29 years,
S/o Late Sh. Jagvir Singh,
r/o B-165, Flat-A, Shalimar Garden,
Extn.-II, Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
… Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. B.S.Mor)


1. Union of India
Through its Secretary Doordarshan,
Ministry of Information Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, India.

2. Chairman,
Prasar Bharati Secretariat,
(India‟s Public Service Broadcaster),
2nd Floor, PTI Building,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

3. Directorate General,
All India Radio,
Prasar Bharti, Broadcasting Corporation of India,
Civil Construction Wing HQ Level-I,
6th floor, Soochna Bhawan,
CGO Complex,
New Delhi-110003.

4. SSW-1,
Prasar Bharti,
Civil Construction Wing: All India Radio,
6th floor, Soochna Bhawan,
New Delhi-110003.

… Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Vikrant Yadav)
2 OA No.1555/2018


Sh. Kushagra, the applicant herein, is the son of one Sh.

Jagvir Singh, who was appointed as AE (Electrical) on 21.09.1982.

He got married to one Smt. Sushma Singh on 16.06.1985.

Applicant was born on 06.09.1988 and he has passed B.Tech in

2009, MBA in 2012, M.Tech in 2013 and Diploma in Industrial

Safety in 2016. Applicant‟s younger brother, namely, Sh. Kalpit

was born on 05.08.1993. As per certificate dated 10.11.2005

issued by CMO, Bulandshahar, Kalpit is a case of ‘Spastic Cerebral

palsy with mental retardation resulting into eighty percent 80%


2. Certain marital disputes arose between Sh. Jagvir Singh and

his wife Smt. Sushma Singh in 2002. Applicant‟s mother Smt.

Sushma Singh, the applicant and his brother were all reportedly

thrown out of the house by said Sh. Jagvir Singh. Applicant‟s

mother filed a case No.591 of 2005 u/s 9 of SectionHindu Marriage Act,

1955 on 11.08.2005 seeking restoration of her conjugal rights in

Court of Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, UP. Sh. Jagvir Singh also

filed a case No.755/2005 u/s 13 of SectionHindu Marriage Act, 1955

seeking divorce on 19.09.2005 in the Court of Civil Judge,

Bulandshahar. This divorce petition was dismissed in default vide

orders dated 04.01.2007.

The Court of Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahar passed an

order on 03.12.2011 against Sh. Jagvir Singh to pay Rs.8000/- per
3 OA No.1555/2018

month to Sh. Kalpit for maintenance. The Court of Civil Judge,

Ghaziabad passed an order in Misc. Petition No.109/2005 u/s 24

of SectionHindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Original Petition No.591/2005 in

favour of Smt. Sushma Singh and directed Sh. Jagvir Singh to pay

Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.8000/- p.m. as

maintenance pendente lite.

3. Prior to family disputes, Sh. Jagvir Singh gave a nomination

form in respect of provident fund on 07.12.1990. As per this

nomination Smt. Sushma Singh was to get full payment in respect

of GPF and in the event of her death, full payment was to be given

to Sh. Kushagra, the applicant herein.

4. The applicant pleads that on 15.07.2015 Sh. Jagvir Singh

gave details of family in Form-3, as was required under Rule 54(12)

of CCS Pension Rules, 1972. In this declaration, three names are

indicated, namely, Sh. Chhidda Singh and Smt. Parsandi Devi,

who are the parents of Sh. Jagvir Singh and Mr. Kalpit Singh, who

is the younger son of Sh. Jagvir Singh. The names of Smt.

Sushma Singh and the applicant are omitted in this Form-3.

Applicant pleads that format for Form-3 was modified vide

notification dated 20.02.2014 wherein a modified Form-3 came

into being. As per this modified Form-3, Note No.1 to 4 were also

added on the Form-3 itself to facilitate correct filling by the

employees. These notes read as under:

4 OA No.1555/2018

“Note 1. – The original Form submitted by the Government.
servant is to be retained. All additions/alterations are to be
recorded in this Form under the signature of Head of Office in Col

7. No new Form will substitute the original Form. However, the
retiring Government. servant should submit the details of family
afresh along with Form 5.

Note 2. – The details of spouse, all children and parents (whether
eligible for family pension or not) and disabled siblings (brothers
and sisters) may be given.

Note 3. – The Head of Office shall indicate the date of receipt of
communication regarding addition or alteration in the family in
the „Remarks‟ column. The fact regarding disability or change of
marital status of a family member should also be indicated in the
„Remarks‟ column.

Note 4. – Wife and husband shall include judicially separated wife
and husband.”

5. The applicant pleads that since Form-3 does not confirm to

the requirements of Note-2 and Note-4 as the names of Smt.

Sushma Singh, the wife of Sh. Jagvir Singh and the applicant who

is the son of Sh. Jagvir Singh are missing. Applicant pleads that

even if Sh. Jagvir Singh and Smt. Sushma Singh were having

differences and even if they were to be judicially separated, which

is not the case, still the names were required to be included as is

clarified in these notes.

6. The said Sh. Jagvir Singh unfortunately died in harness on

08.01.2016 leaving behind his wife Smt. Sushma Singh, the

applicant and Sh. Kalpit, who were all dependent on Sh. Jagvir

Singh. Upon his death the applicant applied for compassionate

ground appointment on 06.02.2016. This was processed by the

respondents. However, eventually the request was rejected vide
5 OA No.1555/2018

letter dated 02.11.2016 on the plea that his name is not included

in the details of family. This rejection letter reads as under:

“In this connection it is to inform that your application was
referred to the concerned Unit of the Headquarters, and it has
been intimated vide their letter dated 21.10.2016 that the name of
Shri Kushagra is not in the family details dated 15.07.2015,
submitted by the Late Shri Jagvir Singh, AE(E) and hence you are
not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Further, your application alongwith related documents in original
is returned herewith.”

7. The applicant pleads that the declaration on 15.07.2015 as

per Form-3, which is the basis for the rejection of his

compassionate ground appointment request, is defective as

complete details as were required to be given as per Note-1 to 4 are

not given. In respect of compassionate ground appointment, it is

the DOPT‟s direction dated 09.10.1998 which are applicable and

as per these instructions, applicant‟s case is covered. As per these

instructions, the compassionate ground appointment is applicable

to a dependent family of a Government servant who dies while in

harness, including death by suicide and list of dependent family

members include the following:

“Note I – “Dependent Family Member” means:

(a) spouse; or

(b) son (including adopted son); or

(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or

(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant

(e) member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this
para, – who was wholly dependent on the Government servant/
6 OA No.1555/2018

member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or
retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be.

(f) married son – provided he fulfils all other requirements of
the scheme and fulfil the criteria laid down in the OM, dated 16-1-
2013. This is effective from 25-2-2015.”

8. Applicant being a son of said Sh. Jagvir Singh, is eligible as

per these instructions. Applicant is aggrieved as his request for

compassionate ground appointment has been rejected and he has

referred the instant OA seeking relief in the form of directions to

the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for

compassionate ground appointment.

9. Applicant relies upon the judgment by Hon‟ble Apex Court in

SectionG.L.Bhatia vs. Union of India and another, (1999) 5 SCC 237.

The relevant part of this judgment reads as follows:

“2. The sole question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the husband
of the deceased government servant, is entitled to family pension
under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules
(for short “the rules”) notwithstanding the fact that the deceased
wife in her nomination did not include the husband. The forums
below have taken the view agreeing with the authorities that
since the nomination was not in favour of the husband and the
husband was staying separate from the wife, the husband would
not be entitled to family pension in question. This view cannot be
sustained in view of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the
rules. It is too well settled that where rights of the parties are
governed by statutory provisions, the individual nomination
contrary to the statute will not operate.

3. Under Rule 54 sub-rule (14(b)(i) the expression “family” has
been defined thus:

“54. (14)(b)(i) Wife in the case of a male government
servant, or husband in the case of a female
government servant….”

7 OA No.1555/2018

4. Sub-Rule (8)(ii) of Rule 54 states that:

“54. (8)(ii) If a deceased government servant or
pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the
family pension shall become payable to the widow or
widower, failing which to the eligible child.”

5. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and there being no
divorce between the husband and wife even though they might
be staying separately, the appellant husband would be entitled
to the family pension in terms of the rules as noted aforesaid and
the authorities, therefore, committed error in not granting family
pension to the appellant relying upon the nomination made by
the deceased wife of the appellant. The impugned order is,
accordingly, set aside and this appeal stands allowed.”

10. Drawing reliance on the ratio of above judgment, applicant

pleads that the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that the rights which

had accrued to the widow of a deceased Government servant to

received family pension and retiral dues cannot be denied even if

the said deceased Government servant has omitted the name of the

wife in the declaration forms. Similarly, the rights that accrue to a

dependent son, cannot be denied simply because his name was not

mentioned in the family details.

11. Per contra, the respondents opposed the OA. It was pleaded

that the present application is barred by limitation as the death

took place on 08.01.2016 whereas OA has been filed on


12. It was further brought out that as per family details given by

late Sh. Jagvir Singh on 15.12.1988, the date of birth of the

applicant was shown as 06.04.1987 whereas birth certificate

submitted by the applicant while seeking compassionate ground
8 OA No.1555/2018

appointment indicates his date of birth as 06.09.1988. There is

contradiction which has not been explained.

13. It was further pleaded that the family details given by late Sh.

Jagvir Singh on 15.07.2015 do not include the name of applicant

and Smt. Sushma Singh as his dependents. Accordingly, the case

of applicant cannot be considered for compassionate ground


14. It was further pleaded that the old format include Form-3 as

well as new Form-3 which came into being on 20.02.2014 are not

much different.

15. The respondents also relied upon a judgment by Hon‟ble Apex

Court in SectionState of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar, 2019 (2)

SCALE 84 wherein Court has given directions that while

considering the compassionate ground appointment request the

status of payments being made including the pension and other

retiral dues are required to be taken into account to assess the

financial conditions of the bereaved family. The Court has also

held that the delays between death and application for seeking

such appointment, is also a relevant factor to be kept into account

and delay can be condoned only in those cases where applicant

was a minor at the time of death and he attains majority on a later

date. In such cases, the time duration between the date of
9 OA No.1555/2018

attaining such majority and application for employment shall be


16. It was pleaded that in view of the foregoing submissions, the

compassionate ground appointment request is not maintainable in

the instant case.

17. The applicant pleaded that the issue in respect of

condonation of delay was already decided and condoned by the

Tribunal vide order dated 12.07.2018 in reference to MA

No.1761/2018 and his request is required to be considered by the


18. Matter has been heard at length. Sh. B.S.Mor, learned

counsel represented the applicant and Sh. Vikrant Yadav, learned

counsel represented the respondents.

19. The scheme of compassionate ground appointment has been

framed to take care of the bereaved family to avoid conditions of

penury and the person so appointed has to take care of the

dependent family members which in the instant case comprises of

estranged widow Smt. Sushma Singh, the applicant and in

addition the disabled son who is presently being looked after by his

grandparents as per the family declaration dated 15.07.2015. It is

noted that there was no maintenance allowance granted to

applicant while the same was granted to his mother and his

younger disabled brother.

10 OA No.1555/2018

The sole ground taken by the respondents for rejection of

applicant‟s request for compassionate ground appointment is non-

inclusion of his name in Form-3. Form-3 was in respect of grant

of pension. The notes of Form-3 specify that the names of all

family members including estranged spouse, are required to be

included. These details are, however, not given in Form-3. This

form is therefore deficient.

The nomination form filled up by late Sh. Jagvir Singh in

respect of GPF indicates full payment to be made to his wife and in

case of her death to the applicant.

In view of this, total reliance on Form-3, while rejecting the

compassionate ground appointment request, is not in order.

20. However, grant of compassionate ground appointment is not a

vested right. It is only a benevolent consideration to be extended

by the respondents, if underlying conditions are fulfilled. In view

of peculiar circumstances of this case, OA is disposed of with the

following directions:

(a) Applicant is at liberty to submit a detailed

representation with supporting documents which shall also

testify that late Sh. Jagvir Singh has not dispossessed the

applicant from the rights as his son in his life time, and as to

how the applicant intends to fulfil the basic purpose of

compassionate ground appointment which is to look after his
11 OA No.1555/2018

widow mother and the disabled brother. The supporting

documents shall necessarily include requisite affidavits etc. to

this effect, from Smt. Sushma Singh as well as the

grandparents who are looking after the disabled son, as per

wishes of late Sh. Jagvir Singh, in support of said

compassionate ground appointment request. The

representation be submitted within a period of three months

(b) In case such a representation is received within the

allowed time, the respondents shall consider the same and

pass a reasoned and speaking order within six months

thereafter and advise the applicant.

There shall be no order as to costs.

( Pradeep Kumar )
Member (A)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation