01.022017
1. This is an execution application in respect of judgment dated 29.102014, The operative part of the judgment wherein family pension has been granted to the applicant reads as under. ' In view of the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased Col. H KY Sharma as the decree of divorce dated 28.03.1989 is nullity. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the family pension as per law. being wife of late H.K, Sharmav The petitioner has submitted the representations from the time after stoppage of family pension to her daughter which was stopped in the year 1988. Thereafter the petitioner filed the writ petition before the Honb|e Delhi High Court in the year 2001, Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the family pension from the date from which petitioner's daughter's family pension was stopped. Petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum over the arrears The petitioner be given all the arrears and the family pension in terms of the order Within a period of three months from the date of the receipt 0f the copy of the order" 2, A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that the applicant is entitled to family pension from the date from which the petitioner's daughter's family pension was stopped Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that in the entire OA no specific date has been mentioned by the applicant with regard to the date on which the family pension was stopped On the contrary, it has been brought to our notice that para 6 of the OA reads as under. That the petitioner after the death of her husband was not in fit mental condition, thus she filed an application for pension through her unmarried daughter namely Kumari Kamal Sharma and on 17 12 1991 vide pension order No.M/Fl429l91. The petitioner started receivmg family pension from 28.11.1989 through her daughter from which the expenses of both petitioner and her daughter were run/managed Copy of letter dated 17.12.1991 from the office of the respondent N03 is annexed herewith. The daughter of the petitioner Kumari Kamal Sharma got married and the petitioner on 28.08.1998 applied for family pension. The family pension given through her daughter Kamal Sharma was stopped and petitioner is not paid family pension till today. The Army Headquarter, Delhi wrote several letters to respondent N03 on 23.02.1990, 25.072013018092000, 28.09.2000, but no order as to grant of pension has been passed by the respondent No.3. Copy of the letters dated 28032001 is annexed herewith along with the copies of application/forms for grant of pension are annex herewith"
3 On the strength of these averments, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that since a reading of the OA gives an impression that the family pension of the applicant was stopped from 1998, acordingly they have already granted arrears of pension starting from 28.08.1998 along with interest @ 9% to the applicant till date and as on date there is nothing outstanding.
4. On the strength of these submissions learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the order dated 29.10.2014 stands complied with and nothing further survives.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in terms of directions passed on 28,09 2016 wherein he was required to ascertain the date with regard to the marriage of the daughter of the applicant and the consequent stoppage of the family pension, he had ascertained that the daughter had got married on 05.04.1993 and therefore, pension was stopped either in 1993 or alternatively in the year 1996 when she iS deemed to have attained the age of 25 years It has also been contended by him that he had gone to the bank wherein the amount of family pension was being credited but as the records are more than two decades old, therefore, officials of the bank stated that they had not preserved such an old record and consequently he is not able to furnish the specific date with regard to the date on which the family pension of the applicant has been stopped. It has been contended that in any case. even if. the applicant did not inform about the marriage of the daughter, she had attained the age of 25 years only in 1996 and therefore, the arrears of family pension for two years are required to be paid.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the respective sides. We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant on account of the fact that the baSIC dictum is that one who asserts rnust prove. ln the entire OA no specific date has been given by the applicant with regard to the stoppage of family pension. In the light of the same. the applicant was given an opportunity to ascertain the date of stoppage of family pension from the bank or from any other source and furnish some kind of credible documentary proof which would have persuaded the court to grant the benefit of family pension in terms of his oral submissions and but he has failed to do so . It is beyond the scope of the powers ofthls Tribunal to enlarge the scope of the relief given in the main judgment and grant him the benefit of family pension prior to 1998 which benefit has already been given to the applicant on the strength of the averments made by him alone in the application. We find that the reasoning given by the Ie learned counsel for the respondents is convincing and credible and in the light of the same. the order of the Tribunal has already been complied with and nothing further remains to be done.
7. For the above mentioned reasons, the application is dismissed on the ground that the order has been complied with (V.K. SHALI) MEMBER (J) (J.N.BURMA) MEMBER (A) O'l azzawism