Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 207 (GAU)

Dorky Lalthlamuani v. Union of India

2008-03-11

H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Writ petitioner No. 1 is the daughter, while writ petitioner No. 2 is the wife of Sepoy C. Lalsangliana (deceased) and Proforma respondent No. 6 is the mother of late Sepoy C. Lalsangliana. 2. By this writ petition both the writ petitioners seek a direction from this Court to the respondent authorities to make provision for Family Pension on account of death of Sep. No. 4362871 C. Lalsangliana (deceased). Writ petitioner No. 2's late husband was enrolled in the Assam Regiment on 1.4.1993 and he was out of service on 8.8.1997. He was granted service element @ Rs.375/- per month with effect from 8.8.1987 for life vide PCDA (E) Allahabad Pension Payment Order No. D/RA/22703/99. Sep. C. Lalsangliana subsequently died on 15.6.2000. Pro forma respondent No. 6, the mother applied for grant of Family Pension in W favour without the knowledge of writ petitioner No. 2. Writ petitioner No. 2 subsequently being known of the fact of making such application by proforma respondent Na. 6, she too submitted an application for grant of family pension in her favour. Both the applications were, thereafter forwarded to respondent No. 2 by the Zila Sainik Welfare & Settlement, Aizawl, Mizoram. 3. On filing of both the applications as stated herein before, a letter was written to respondent No. 3 to take investigation in terms of Para 174 of Regulation for the Army 1987 (Revised Edition) and submit his recommendation to enable the respondent No. 2 to take further action in the matter. 4. In the meantime, proforma respondent No. 6 without knowledge of the writ petitioner No. 2 applied for legal Heirship Certificate to the Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl and accordingly issued Heirship Certificate in favour of proforma respondent No. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 2 also submitted an application to the same court for issue of a legal Heirship Certificate which was, however, resisted by the pro forma respondent No. 6. The Heirship Certificate so issued was challenged by petitioner No. 2 by preferring an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl. The said appeal was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 3.4.2003 whereby the Heirship Certificate issued in favour of proforma respondent No. 6 was cancelled and Heirship Certificate was issued in favour of petitioner No. 2. The Heirship Certificate so issued was challenged by petitioner No. 2 by preferring an appeal before the District Council Court, Aizawl. The said appeal was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 3.4.2003 whereby the Heirship Certificate issued in favour of proforma respondent No. 6 was cancelled and Heirship Certificate was issued in favour of petitioner No. 2. Against the judgment of the District Council Court, an appeal was preferred before this Court which was registered as RSA No. 2/2003. The said RSA No. 2/2003 was disposed of in terms or the agreement so arrived at between the parties vide order dated 19.5.2004. 5. After disposal of the second appeal as aforesaid, both the petitioner No. 2 and the proforma respondent No. 6 approached respondent No. 4 for grant of Family Pension as per agreement arrived at between them. But their claims could not be taken into consideration since the Rules provided therefore do not justify to allow Family Pension as agreed upon and the matted was sent back, which, however, triggered both the writ petitioners to present this writ petition. 6. Respondents No. 1-5 fried affidavit-in-opposition wherein they inter-alia contended that such apportionment of Family Pension is not allowed by the Rules and therefore, the claim was not taken into consideration. The provisions contained in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. B/38207/AG/PS4 (b)/93 1/B/D(Pens/Ser) dated 26th August, 1998 provides the following provisions: Parents who were wholly dependent on the Armed Forces Personnel when he/she was alive providing the deceased Armed Forces Personnel has left behind neither a widow or a child. Since the petitioner No. 2 is the surviving widow of late Sep. C. Lalsangliana and as such she is the only eligible person for ordinary Family Pension of late Sep. C. Lalsangliana. 7. We have heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners and also heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the proforma respondent No. 6 and learned C.G.C. for respondents No. 1-5. 8. This court, at the very outset appreciates the approach of the learned Counsel of either party including the learned CGC for the respondents No. 1-5. It is agreed in between that when the widow of the deceased Sep. C. Lalsangliana is alive, proforma respondent No. 6, the mother is not entitled to have the Family Pension on the death of Sep. It is agreed in between that when the widow of the deceased Sep. C. Lalsangliana is alive, proforma respondent No. 6, the mother is not entitled to have the Family Pension on the death of Sep. C. Lalsangliana in view of the Rules provided by the Defence Ministry. In that situation, the learned Counsel of both parties agrees that a direction be issued to the respondent No. 4 to allow Family Pension in favour of petitioner No. 2, widow of late Sep. C. Lalsangliana on filing of required documents. This court, having considered the facts appearing in this writ petition and the Rules provided therefor, finds it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondent No. 1 to allow Family Pension to writ petitioner No. 2. Let a direction be accordingly issued. 9. It is made clear that the second appeal was disposed of on the basis of an agreement arrived at in between the writ petitioner No. 2 and proforma respondent No. 6, both being the widow (wife) and the mother respectively of late Sep. C. Lalsangliana. The Family Pension which would be received by writ petitioner No. 2 shall be apportioned in between them as agreed. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.