Meera Devi Sharma vs DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY on 6 November 2026

1. Union of India, through Heard of Department/Competent Authority, Department of Atomic Energy, New Delhi.

2. The Director, Government of India, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Rare Material Project, Establishment-IV, Department of Atomic Energy, Postal Bag No.1, Yelwal Post, Mysuru – 571130.

3. The Controller, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Rare Material Project, Establishment-IV, Department of Atomic Energy, 3rd Floor, Central Complex, Trombay, Mumbai.

4. The Assistant Personnel Officer, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Rare Material Project, Establishment-IV, 3rd Floor, Central Complex, Trombay, Mumbai.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to family pension, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(i) To quash the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 (contained as Annexure No A-1 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.

(ii) To respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the applicant for family pension, with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

(iv) Cost of the present case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the son of the applicant was appointed on the post of Scientific Assistant B by the respondents vide order dated 24.04.2006 and he died in harness on 08.03.2010. The applicant submitted a representation dated 17.09.2024 to the respondents ventilating certain grievances. Having failed to elicit a response, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 353 of 2025 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 07.07.2025, directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation. The respondents rejected the applicant’s representation vide order dated 19.08.2025. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s grievance is that the respondents have failed to consider the fact that the applicant’s son died in dubious circumstances; that the scientists who are taking care of atomic/nuclear material and related research in Bhabha Atomic Research Center are facing threat of life; that several deaths have taken place in mysterious circumstances; and that this aspect is being examined by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PIL No. 75 of 2015; yet the respondents have treated the case harshly and not granted old pension scheme in place of new pension scheme to her son and not granted family pension to her.

4. The respondents submit that the applicant’s son, Ashutosh Sharma, was appointed as Scientific Assistant B with effect from 31.03.2006 and he was subsequently promoted as Scientific Assistant C with effect from 01.07.2009; that the applicant’s son did not attend office on 08.03.2010 and was found hanging from the ceiling in his house and the reasons for his suicide could not be ascertained; that averments regarding ‘mysterious deaths’ and PIL have no nexus with the applicant’s entitlement to family pension and are beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal; that all service dues including benefits under the National Pension Scheme (NPS) have been settled as per the extant rules; that the applicant’s husband was a Government employee and he is receiving pension which is a regular and independent source of income and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to family pension on behalf of her deceased son under rule 50 (10)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and also in terms of paragraph 8.4 (d) of office memorandum (OM) dated 02.09.2008 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare (DPPW).

5. Heard both the parties. 6.1 It is noted that rule 54(10-A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 governs grant of family pension to parents of the deceased Government servant in the following terms: “(10-A)(a) Family pension to the parents shall be payable if the parents were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before his or her death and the deceased Government servant is not survived by a widow or an eligible child.

(b) The family pension, wherever admissible to parents, will be payable to the mother of the deceased Government servant failing which to the father of the deceased Government servant.” (emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that family pension is payable to the parents if they were wholly dependent of the Government servant before his death. 6.2 In the case at hand, admittedly, the applicant’s husband was an employee of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and he is in receipt of pension. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant was wholly dependent on her son before his death. Viewed in this perspective, the respondents cannot be faulted for having rejected the applicant’s case for grant of family pension after the death of her son. 6.3 The applicant has referred to dubious circumstances of her son’s death and the PIL before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in connection with such deaths. It is noted that the matter is sub judice and it is not the place of this Tribunal to entertain the said controversy. It is also observed that the applicant has not placed any evidence on record to indicate any negligence on part of the respondents in the matter of her son’s death. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

Member (A)

Vidya

Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.11.12 15:13:12 +05'30'