Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1926 (HP)

Raj Kumari v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

2011-04-01

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K.Sharma, Judge The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “(i) That the respondents may please be directed to allow/sanction family pension in favour of the applicant to which she is lawfully entitled to receive from the respondents, being legally wedded wife of Shri Saran Dass (deceased) and non-release of the same till date is rightly to be construed an act of arbitrariness and malafide which is wholly perverse, unfair, unjustified and unconstitutional.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 2 of the preliminary submissions:- “That the applicant is claiming family pension being the wife (now widow) of the deceased Sh. Saran Dass, Sr. Asstt. The aforesaid claim of the applicant is not maintainable as one Smt. Veena Devi, is also claiming to be the wife (now widow) of the deceased Sh. Saran Dass and moreover when, as per the Records available with the Respondent corporation, it is only Smt. Veena Devi, who is authorized to receive the retiral benefits and who has also been given the GPF etc. Thus, unless and until the claim inter-se of the present applicant Smt. Raj Kumari and Smt. Veena Devi, both widows, is decided, by way of succession certificate, by a Civil Court, the replying Respondent corporation is unable to give family pension only to the applicant. However, as soon as, the inter-se claim as above, is decided the Replying Respondent corporation will release the Family Pension to the applicant or to the applicant and Smt. Veena Devi jointly with equal share as per the provision of Section 374 of the Indian Succession Act and the provisions of Rule 54(7)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 respectively.” 3. Respondent No.3 has not filed any reply despite opportunity having been afforded. 4. Rejoinder refuting the stand on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and reiterating the averments set up in the petition, has been filed. 5. The dispute between the parties lies within narrow compass. The petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari is claiming herself to be legally wedded wife of late Shri Saran Dass, who was in the employment of the respondent-Corporation as Senior Assistant and had died on 18.6.1999. It is alleged that respondent No.3 Smt. Veena Devi, who was concubine of said Shri Saran Dass, had settled with him and gave birth to a female child. 6. It is alleged that respondent No.3 Smt. Veena Devi, who was concubine of said Shri Saran Dass, had settled with him and gave birth to a female child. 6. Thus, in essence, the case of the petitioner is that since she is legally wedded wife of late Shri Saran Dass, she is entitled for family pension, albeit the fact that respondent No.3 Smt. Veena Devi was appointed as nominee by the deceased in the service record. 7. From the perusal of the materials on record, such as, copies of statements dated 23.8.1996, made by the petitioner and late Shri Saran Dass, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamsala and the order of even date passed by the court on the basis of those statements enhancing the monthly maintenance payable by said Shri Saran Dass to the petitioner to Rs.300/-, certificate Ex.P-1 dated 21.7.2000, issued by Gram Panchayat Manjairna, copy of judgment dated 31.12.1974, rendered by this court in Criminal Revision (ref.) No. 51 of 1972, Annexure P/1, whereby the revision petition filed by said Shri Saran Dass against the order of maintenance in favour of the petitioner was dismissed, it is manifest that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Shri Saran Dass and respondent No.3 Smt. Veena Devi, who was kept by him as second wife was not having any legal status as a wife. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner relating to her husband late Shri Saran Dass with effect from the date of his death, that is, 18.6.1999, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which interest @ 9% shall also be payable. 9. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.