Pension Liability For Services Rendered In North-East Frontier Agency Prior To It Becoming State Of Arunachal Pradesh Is On Centre: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that when a person who had died in harness while being deployed in North Eastern Frontier Agency, now Arunachal Pradesh, which was directly under the administration of the Government of India at the time, the family pension liability would only be upon the Central Government and not on the Government of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. "In the case of...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that when a person who had died in harness while being deployed in North Eastern Frontier Agency, now Arunachal Pradesh, which was directly under the administration of the Government of India at the time, the family pension liability would only be upon the Central Government and not on the Government of the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
"In the case of the petitioner’s father, his service was rendered and utilised when the Arunachal Pradesh (previously NEFA) was directly under the administration of the Government of India. Therefore, the service of late Sankaran Nair is relatable to Union purpose. The pension liability therefore cannot be fastened on the Government of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The liability is entirely on the Union Government", the Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed.
The petitioner herein is the daughter of one late Sankaran Nair who was a Last Grade Servant (Barber) in Malabar Special Police I Battalion, and who died in harness in the year 1968, while working in NEFA, on deployment. Following the death of her mother in 2002, the petitioner and her younger sister alone became the legal heirs of the deceased. The Central Family Pension was initially paid to the deceased's wife, until she passed. Pursuant to the same, upon the request and consent of the legal heirs, life time arrears of the mother was paid to the petitioner. It is noted that the petitioner is also unemployed and unmarried, and without any regular source of income.
The petitioner had submitted an application to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu seeking family pension. When the petitioner had raised grievance before the Grievance Cell Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, she was directed to approach the concerned State Government for the same. When the petitioner once again submitted the application to the Grievance Cell, the Director General of CRPF addressed a communication to the Secretary (Home), Arunachal Pradesh Administration stating that the petitioner’s grievance ought to be considered by the Arunachal Pradesh Administration and not by the CRPF.
It is the petitioner's case that the respondents were only trying to avoid their liability, thus making the petitioner suffer, by effectively denying family pension to which she is legally entitled.
The case was instituted in Kerala since the petitioner's late father had been employed in the Malabar Special Police, and it was only on the eve of re-organisation of State on linguistic basis, that the Malabar Special Police was divided into two, one for Kerala and the other for Madras State (which was later renamed as Tamil Nadu).
In the Statement filed by the Director General of CRPF, however, it was submitted that since the records of the deceased was available with 1st Battalion Tamil Nadu Armed Police and Arunachal Government, there was no pivotal role for CRPF to get sanction of dependent pension to the petitioner.
On the other hand, the Secretary (Home), Arunachal Pradesh Administration filed an Affidavit, in which it was contended that late father of the petitioner was an employee of the Central Government and all the service benefits, if any, would only be borne by the Central Government. It was thus contended that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had no role in the said case. It was pointed out that during the time of passing of the petitioner's father, Arunachal Pradesh had been under administration of Central Government.
The Court in this case noted that the petitioner's father had served and passed away before the creation of Arunachal Pradesh State. The monthly family pension had initially been sanctioned by the Secretary (Home), Arunachal Pradesh Administration, Government of India, and was paid to the petitioner's mother.
The Court thus noted that the question was whether the pension liability would be on the State of Arunachal Pradesh or on the Government of India. It perused Section 34 of the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986, and ascertained that,
"...it is only the rights, liabilities and obligations other than those relatable to or in connection with a Union purpose which are made the rights, liabilities and obligations of the Government of the State of Arunachal Pradesh".
It is on this basis that the Court found that the pension liability herein could only be on the Central Government.
"The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Union of India and the competent Secretary/Department to sanction and disburse family pension to the petitioner along with arrears of family pension with effect from 01.10.2002. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months," the Court held while disposing the case.
The petitioner in this case was represented by Advocates Lakshmi Ramdas and Sreedhar Ravindran. Government Pleader M.R. Sreelatha, Government Pleader Anima M., and Advocate N.S. Daya Sindhu Sreehari appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Case Title: A. Saudamini v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 109