Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1051 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Smt. Bishakha Devi

2002-09-27

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment 1. This is a writ petition filed by the Union of India, Railway Administration challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (here-in-after referred to CAT) Patna Bench, Patna. The decision is dated 3.5.2001 (Annexure-1). 2. The railway administration is apparently under a predicament on what to do as they are faced with a situation that they have to pay post retiral benefits to a woman who is not exactly the wife of the deceased railway employee and have further to pay family pension to the children born out of a relationship other than wedlock. This arrangement has been mentioned by the CAT, as a settlement. In so far as the High Court is concerned, it cannot put a seal on the decision of the CAT that a settlement may be spelled out arising from social misadventures. 3. In so far as High Court is concerned, it would not like to make any observation so that it may descend on the children of whatever they may be receiving rightly or wrongly for the folly of their parents. This Court will leave out the siblings. 4. The other aspects need a short recital on facts. It is admitted between all the parties i.e. Union of India and respondent Smt. Bishakha Devi that the relationship between railway employee, the late Vijay Kumar Pathak was not exactly that of a husband and wife. Vijay Kumar Pathak was married to a woman known as Smt. Asha Devi. While Smt. Asha Devi was alive as wife to Vijay Kumar Pathak, Smt. Bishakha Devi is attributed to have had a son from Vijay Kumar Pathak. Not only this the nomination paper in service records for Provident Fund and post retirement benefits was executed on 11.3.1989 in favour of the other woman who was not the wife, Smt. Bishakha Devi, while the one already on the record is in favour of the wife of Vijay Kumar Pathak, and had not been cancelled. 5. During the life time of Vijay Kumar Pathak, a disciplinary proceeding had been taken out for having committed adultery. This is an offence under the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The disciplinary proceeding concluded in virtually charging the employee Vijay Kumar Pathak for having an adulterous relationship or for that matter plural marriage. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service. This order is dated 5.7.1989. This is an offence under the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The disciplinary proceeding concluded in virtually charging the employee Vijay Kumar Pathak for having an adulterous relationship or for that matter plural marriage. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service. This order is dated 5.7.1989. Now it needs to be noticed that while Vijay Kumar Pathak was being removed from service on 5.7.1989 on the ground that he was guilty of a misdemeanour by living in adultery while in service, four months earlier (11.3.1989) the nomination papers of Provident Fund and post retirement benefits were taken up in favour of his mistress Smt. Bishakha Devi. The railway administration also was not firm in its decision and having passed an order of removal of service changed the orde through its appellate authority by reducing the punishment from removal of service to reversion to a lower grade. However, the record stood that Vijay Kumar Pathak was married to Asha Devi and he had yet another woman home during the subsistence of a valid marriage. 6. Now the railway administration is faced with a situation that it is paying retiral dues to siblings born out of a relationship in adultery. This part the Court will not comment upon lest the order of the court may harm the children. In such circumstances the law lends itself to legitimacy despite realities. The view of the court is that while consenting adults may indulge in their amorous misadventures let the children not pay for the sins of their indiscreet parents. 7. On the rest is concerned, i.e. respondent Bishakha Devi yet laying claim upon railway administration that she should be getting an appointment with the railways on compassionate ground, it appears to be a claim which has been stretched too far. If the decision of the Supreme Court were to be seen in re-matter of Rameshwari Devi V/s. State of Bihar & ors. A.I.R. 2000 Supreme Court-735 : 2000(2) PLJR (SC) 15, it leaves children born out of wedlock with receiving benefits, post retirement benefits, but after due inquiry, reference paragraph 15 of its judgment. No other vested right has been created. 8. The order of the Tribunal is clearly an error. It is, thus, quashed in terms of this order. 9. The petition succeeds in part.