Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 303 (GAU)

Taru Boro v. Union of India

2018-02-19

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. U. Das, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. The dispute initially was with regard to payment of retirement benefits and family pension on account of the demise of one Pradip Mandal on 19.02.2014, who at the relevant time was working as Khalasi under the establishment of the N.F. Railways. The writ petitioner herein is the second wife with a girl child begotten through Pradip Mandal. The respondent no. 6 is the first wife and the mother of three children begotten through Pradip Mandal. 3. Consequent upon the death of Pradip Mandal, the respondent no. 6 Smti. Punam Devi Mandal made claim for family pension and other retirement dues, claiming to be the legally married wife as per the Family Declaration that have been submitted by Pradip Mandal during his service tenure and as per the Provident Fund Nomination Form. The said claim was answered by the Railway Authorities through letter dated 10.10.2014 informing her that they have received a Legal Notice dated 22.05.2014 from Smti Taru Boro (petitioner herein) claiming family pension and other retirement dues by identifying herself as the wife of the deceased Pradip Mandal. By the said letter dated 10.10.2014, the Railway Authorities took the stand that until and unless the dispute is settled between the two claimants, payment of retirement benefits etc. cannot be made to any party. This stand of the Railway Authorities was assailed by Smti. Punam Devi Mandal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. 102 of 2015. By order dated 13.01.2016, the said O.A. was allowed holding that Smti. Punam Devi Mandal is entitled to family pension and other retirement dues of the deceased employee as per law. The said view was taken having regard to the Family Declaration that had been submitted by the deceased employee i.e. Pradip Mandal before the Railway Authorities in the year 2014. Accordingly, a direction was made to the Railway Authorities to release the family pension and other retirement benefits in favour of Smti. Punam Devi Mandal within a specified period together with interest of 12% on the arrear amount calculated from six months next after the death of Pradip Mandal. Aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by Smti. Accordingly, a direction was made to the Railway Authorities to release the family pension and other retirement benefits in favour of Smti. Punam Devi Mandal within a specified period together with interest of 12% on the arrear amount calculated from six months next after the death of Pradip Mandal. Aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by Smti. Taru Boro (second wife). 4. The present writ petition was admitted for hearing on 19.09.2016. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 11.01.2017, a Deed of Undertaking was filed by Smti. Punam Devi Mandal through affidavit dated 20.01.2017 which, in a sense, resolves the present dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 herein. Taking note of the said Deed of Undertaking, this Court passed order dated 23.01.2017, which is reproduced hereunder: "23.01.2017 Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner (second wife). The respondent No.6/applicant is represented by the learned Senior counsel, Mr. GP Bhowmik. The Railway authorities are represented by Ms. U Das, the learned Standing counsel. In pursuant to Courts order of 11.01.2017, an undertaking is furnished by Smti Punam Devi Mandal, the first wife of Lt. Pradip Mandal, Ex-Khalasi under the SSE (W) CGON of NF Railway. In her undertaking, the first wife says that the superannuation dues received by her from the Railway authorities have all been appropriated to square up outstanding loans and now, only the monthly family pension is being received by her. On the claim made on behalf of the minor girl, Neha Boro Mandal, purported to be born to the railway Khalasi through the second wife, smti Taru Boro, the first wife states that she is ready to return the proportionate share for the minor girl, in the event, the verdict in this case recognizes the right of the child born through the second marriage, to receive the dues on account of the employee Lt. Pradip Mandal. Under the ratio of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 , a child born through a void second marriage is entitled to a share on account of her father and, therefore, having regard to the impugned verdict of the CAT, which excludes the second wife and the minor daughter absolutely from the pension dues of Lt. Pradip Mandal, the following interim arrangement is ordered during the pendency of this case. Pradip Mandal, the following interim arrangement is ordered during the pendency of this case. The respondent/applicant, Smti Punam Devi Mandal has already received all dues as the first wife of Lt. Pradip Mandal. The receipt of such sum is made subject to the result of this case. As regards the monthly disbursal of family pension, the first wife receives around Rs.15000/- a month. Hence, Rs.5000/- thereof should be retained in the hand of the employer every month, without disbursal to the first wife, Smti Punam Devi Mandal. If the Tribunals verdict of 13.01.2016 in the OA No.102/2015 is left undisturbed, this deducted amount will be disbursed to the respondent/applicant, smti Punam Devi Mandal. Otherwise, this sum will be utilized for paying the share of the minor, Neha Boro Mandal, on whose behalf, this writ petition is filed by her mother, Smti Taru Boro, claiming to be the second wife of the Railway employee, Lt. Pradip Mandal. The above is ordered accordingly as an interim arrangement, subject to the result of the case. " 5. It is now seen that the issue is only with regard to the entitlement of the minor daughter of the writ petitioner to the proportionate share of family pension and other retirement benefits as per the law laid down in Rameswari Devi (supra). The Supreme Court have held that although second marriage contracted during subsistence of the first marriage is void, however, minor children of second marriage were entitled to family pension. In the instant case, Smti. Punam Devi Mandal i.e. respondent no. 6 have furnished a Deed of Undertaking to pay back the due share of family pension and other retirement benefits to Ms. Neha Boro (daughter of the writ petitioner), if she is found entitled to. 6. The respondent no. 6 have nowhere denied that Ms. Neha Boro is not the daughter of Late Pradip Mandal. She has only questioned the legality of the marriage contracted between the writ petitioner and Late Pradip Mandal. In the absence of any pleadings and/or supporting documents, the benefit of proportionate entitlement to family pension and other retirement dues cannot be denied to the minor daughter of the petitioner, following the law laid down in Rameswari Devi (supra). 7. She has only questioned the legality of the marriage contracted between the writ petitioner and Late Pradip Mandal. In the absence of any pleadings and/or supporting documents, the benefit of proportionate entitlement to family pension and other retirement dues cannot be denied to the minor daughter of the petitioner, following the law laid down in Rameswari Devi (supra). 7. Having regard to the above, we hold that the minor daughter of the writ petitioner is entitled to proportionate share of the family pension and other retirement benefits until she attains the age of majority. The respondent Railways shall now make arrangement for disbursal of the proportionate share of family pension to which Ms. Neha Boro is entitled to. Such proportionate share shall be paid in the bank account of Ms. Neha Boro, allowed to be operated by the writ petitioner mother, until she attains the age of majority. Monthly disbursal of family pension be made in such a manner that the lumpsump retirement benefits already paid and utilised by Smti. Punam Devi Mandal gets gradually adjusted and Ms. Neha Boros share gets accordingly exhausted. This disposes of the present writ petition and the order of the Tribunal stands accordingly set aside.