Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2550 (RAJ)

Sharifa Bibi v. Union of India

2017-11-21

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents for making payment of full family pension to her along with arrears and interest @ 12% per annum from the date it became due. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated that husband of the petitioner Late Abdul Hafiz took voluntary retirement from service on 06.05.1998 and died on 16.03.2001. As the petitioner was indicated as nominee by Late Abdul Hafiz, the petitioner started receiving family pension being widow of Abdul Hafiz. 3. The respondent No. 4-Naseem Bano filed a suit for declaration & perpetual injunction before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 2, Jodhpur ('the trial court'), claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of Late Abdul Hafiz and seeking benefit of family pension. 4. The suit was decreed by the trial court, which directed that the respondent No. 4-Naseem Bano and the petitioner-Sharifa Bibi were both legally wedded wives of the Late Abdul Hafiz and directed the employer to make payment of family pension to Smt. Naseem Bano and the petitioner equally. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed first appeal. The first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, while the declaration regarding the respondent No. 4 being legally wedded wife was maintained, the direction regarding payment of pension to respondent No. 4 was set aside being barred by law. 6. It is submitted that where after, the respondent-employer by their Revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated 21.11.2014, reduced the pension of the petitioner by half and started making payment of the same to the respondent No. 4 vide PPO dated 17.11.2017 filed as Annex.-R/2 and Annex.-R/1 respectively, the PPOs indicated payment w.e.f. the date a declaration was given by the trial court i.e. 24.01.2014. 7. It is submitted that the respondents are not justified in reducing the pension of the petitioner and making payment of half pension to the respondent No. 4, as her suit for injunction in this regard already stands rejected, which has not been appealed against or varied by any court of competent jurisdiction. 8. 7. It is submitted that the respondents are not justified in reducing the pension of the petitioner and making payment of half pension to the respondent No. 4, as her suit for injunction in this regard already stands rejected, which has not been appealed against or varied by any court of competent jurisdiction. 8. A response has been filed by the respondent-employer, inter alia, indicating that in terms of provisions of Rule 75 (7)(i) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 ('the Rules'), in case the deceased employee has more than one widow, the family pension would be paid to the widows in equal share and in light of the said provision, half pension has been paid to the respondent No. 4. 9. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it is apparent that by way of decree dated 23.01.2014 passed by the competent civil court, the respondent No. 4 has been declared wife of the deceased Abdul Hafiz along with the petitioner. Once such a declaration has been granted, which has been upheld by the appellate court by its judgment dated 19.07.2017, even if the injunction to grant equal/half pension to the respondent No. 4 has been set aside by the appellate court, the legal consequence of the declaration in favour of the respondent No. 4 would have to be given effect, in terms of the Rules governing the grant of pension to the widows of deceased employee. 10. The Rule 75 (7) (i) of the Rules is very specific, which provides for grant of pension to more than one widows 'equally'. 11. In view thereof, the respondents are justified in granting half pension to respondent No. 4 and, consequently, reduce the petitioner's pension by half. 12. An apprehension has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 may seek to recover the amount of pension paid to the petitioner since 24.01.2014 till the date of PPO was issued and payment was started being made to the respondent No. 4. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 fairly submitted that the respondent No. 4 would not seek the said amount from the petitioner or the Railway Authorities. 14. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 fairly submitted that the respondent No. 4 would not seek the said amount from the petitioner or the Railway Authorities. 14. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken care of. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.