ADARSH BALA (M) , vs CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (M) ,

1 (OA No.

060/240/2023) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH OA No.

060/240/2023 Chandigarh, this the 14th day of March,2023 HON’BLE SH.

RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MRS.

RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI MEMBER (A) AdarshBala, aged 48 years, d/o Sh.

ChanduLal, resident of Sunder Chak, Tehsil and District Pathankot. ……..Applicant ( By Advocate: Sh.

Rajeev Dev Sharma ) VERSUS 1.

Union of India through Director General, Central Public Works Department, A-Wing, Room No.101, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2.

Chief engineer (P&S), Chandigarh Central Elect.

Circle, PWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

3.

Superintending Engineer (E) ChandigarhCentral Elect.Circle, PWD, Sector-9-A, Chandigarh.

4.

The Pay & Account Officer, PWD, North Zone, East Block No.4 R.K.

Puram, New Delhi.

2 (OA No.

060/240/2023) 5.

Executive Engineer (E) Kendriya Sadan, B-Block 3rd Floor, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar (Punjab) 6.

The Sr.

Accounts Officer, CPAO, Trikoot-II Complex Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. ( By advocate : Sh.

Sanjay Goyal, Senior CGSC on receiving advance copy of OA ) O R D E R(Oral) Per: SH.

RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J): 1.

From the pleadings the case of the applicant is that the father of the applicant served in CPWD and retired from service in 1984.

He died on 18.01.2012 and after his death, the family pension was provided to the mother of the applicant till her death on 05.04.2016.

The applicant was married on 25.06.2004 but was divorced with her husband on 18.02.2009.

The decree of divorce was passed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

After her divorce the applicant has been residing and is fully dependent on her parents.

Being divorced daughter she has made a representation to the respondents department for family pension which is pending till date.

3 (OA No.

060/240/2023) 3.

The applicant has further submitted that as per Annexure A-3, the Executive Engineer ( Jalandhar ) has sent the letter to respondent no. ondent no.

4 to release the family pension qua the applicant but the same was not done till date.

Till date the respondents department has not decided the issue of family pension qua the applicant.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant will be satisfied if the competent authority is directed to decide the case of the applicant qua the family pension in a time bound manner.

6.

Learned counsel for respondents has no objection if the competent authority is directed to decide the above in a time bound manner.

7.

This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that natural justice will be met if the competent authority / respondent no.

4 is directed to decide the case of the applicant qua the family pension in furtherance to Annexure A-4 in a time bound manner.

8.

Resultantly, respondent no.

4 is directed to decide the case of the applicant qua family pension within a period of eight weeks after receiving the order of this Tribunal.

9.

Needless to say that competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order and release the family 4 (OA No.

060/240/2023) pension qua the applicant from due date.

The competent authority shall also consider the case of the applicant qua the interest for sanctioning the delayed family pension.

10.

Thus, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

The applicant is directed to make available a copy of OA as well as of order of this Tribunal to respondent no.

4 / competent authority.

11.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not touched upon the merits of the case. (RASMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) Member (A) Member (J) Db*