Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 135 (MAN)

Chingkhanvung v. Union of India

2022-07-20

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. RS Reisang, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Vijayanand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. G. Khupchingpao, learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner, who is the first wife of the deceased Government servant Jangsei Kuki, has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to release/pay the family pension of the deceased to her with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the year 1999 on the amount of pension/gratuity for delay payment. 3. Brief facts, which led to the filing of the writ petition, are as follows:- The petitioner is the first wife of Jangsei Kuki who died on 28.5.1998 in harness and who had three wives during his life time. The deceased Jangsei Kuki was serving as MT driver in 512 SS & TC (GREF) and was posted in the office of the third respondent at the time of his death. However, the authority has yet to grant/release pension/death benefits/gratuities to the legal heirs or successors. 3.1. The petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased and is entitled to family pension and other pensionary benefits. Though a Government employee cannot marry a second wife when first wife was living or the first marriage still subsists, the second wife died on 17.9.2004 while the third wife has remarried foregoing the service claims and other pensionary benefits and, as such, the petitioner alone is the legal heir of late Jangsei Kuki. 3.2. Earlier, the second wife Chingzahoih @ Hoihnu filed O.S.No.2 of 2000 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Churachandpur claiming pensionary benefits of the deceased. In the said suit, a compromise was arrived at and, accordingly, on 29.9.2000 a comprise decree was passed. Against the compromise decree, the Union of India filed First Appeal No.1 of 2001 on the ground that the said compromise decree does not bind the Union of India, as they were neither party nor they have given notice by the trial court before passing the compromise decree. However, by the judgment dated 20.1.2004, the said Civil Appeal No.1 of 2001 was dismissed. However, by the judgment dated 20.1.2004, the said Civil Appeal No.1 of 2001 was dismissed. Against which, the Union of India, represented by the Officer Commanding, filed Regular Second Appeal No.4 of 2004 before the Gauhati High Court and the High Court, by the judgment dated 13.2.2012, disposed of the appeal with a direction to the appellant Union of India to release pension and other financial benefits of late Jangsei Kuki to Hoinu and Ginkhaniian, who is the son of late Jamsei Kuki may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme. After releasing the said retirement and other service benefits, which are to be released in the name of Hoinu shall be distributed amongst the parties as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise decree dated 29.9.2000. 3.3. According to the petitioner, during the proceedings of the pension case, the third wife Hoinu @ Hoinu Chupra remarried to one Mangkholun and she made an affidavit foregoing the service claims and family pension benefits. During pendency of the appeal before the Gauhati High Court, the second wife Chingzahoi @ Hoihnu died on 17.9.2004. Therefore, the petitioner is the only surviving legal wife of Jangsei Kuki. 3.4. The son of the second wife, namely Lunkhongam, who was one of the nominees in the nomination for family pension filed Original Petition No.6 of 2019 before the Family Court, Churachandpur praying to claim family pension of his father Jangsei Kuki. By the order dated 31.5.2019, a compromise decree was made declaring Lunkhongam as his successor and legal heir and to release the family pension and other service benefits under his name. It was also ordered that the benefits so released shall be equally distributed and shared among the parties. 3.5. While the claim petition of Lunkhongam was pending before the concerned authority, the third respondent wrote to counsel for the petitioner on 14.3.2020 requesting to ascertain the details of the first wife and to produce a legal heirship certificate to their office for further proceedings of the pension claim in her favour. Accordingly, the SDO, Churanchandpur issued legal heir certificate on 26.6.2020 identifying the petitioner as the first wife and legal heir of the deceased Jangsei Kuki. Accordingly, the SDO, Churanchandpur issued legal heir certificate on 26.6.2020 identifying the petitioner as the first wife and legal heir of the deceased Jangsei Kuki. 3.6 On 28.5.2020, the Assistant Administrative Officer of the third respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner's counsel requesting him to furnish necessary documents of the first wife for early porcessing of pension claim. After obtaining necessary documents from the petitioner, the counsel had furnished the same with a forwarding letter dated 21.7.2020 to the third respondent and the same was received in their office on 23.7.2020 itself. Despite receipt of the same, the family pension has not been granted till date. Hence, the writ petition. 4. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents 1 to 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the Department is duty bound to pay/release the terminal benefits as per service documents and took diligent steps towards the same. However, the matter was prolonged owing to allegations of plural marriages, children from the respective marriages, in addition to the changing facts as well as multiple Court cases filed by various members of the family. 4.1. It is stated that as per the service records, the name of the third wife and the son of the first wife namely Ginkhalian were noted. However, the delay in the instant case has occurred due to number of litigation stance by various stake holders. The delay can be attributed to the non-submission of documents for progressing the case by the petitioner as well as Hoinu, the third wife. The petitioner filed the present writ petition claiming that she is the only legal heir and release family pension and pensoinary benefits. Owing to the above, complexities, the compromise deed upheld by the High Court vide judgment dated 29.8.2000 could not be implemented till date. It is also stated that the petitioner remains amongst the alleged wives of late Jangsei Kuki and further none of the sons of late Jangsei Kuki are eligible for family pension being more than 25 years age as on this date. 4.2. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that since incomplete documents were received from the petitioner through her advocate, a reminder was given on 16.7.2021 to onward forward the documents. However, instead of forwarding the complete documents to the third respondent, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Further, the petitioner cannot assume that there is no objection from respondents 5 and 6. However, instead of forwarding the complete documents to the third respondent, the petitioner filed the writ petition. Further, the petitioner cannot assume that there is no objection from respondents 5 and 6. In view of numerous litigation at various Courts with different claimant shows dispute between various claimants to claim all dues only for himself/herself only despite best attempts by the respondents 1 to 4 to pay dues of late Jangsei Kuki as per the orders of Central Government and Rules of Government. 5. The respondents 5 and 6 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that they do not know the details about how the family pension of Jangsei Kuki was processed and on whose name the matter was proceeded as the elder brother of late Jangsei Kuki, namely Shongam @ Suohkhongam was running for and on behalf of the family members of Jangsei Kuki. In the compromise agreement, none of the family members of late Jangsei Kuki were present and the said compromise agreement regarding distribution of family pension was made between the said Shongam @ Suokhongam, late Kaizalian father of the second wife Hoihnu @ Chingzahoih and some other members of relative, but none of the wives and children were present. It is true that the second wife Hoinu @ Chingzhoih died on 17.9.2014 and the third wife Hoinu Chupra had re-married with the younger brother of late Jangsei Kuki and she did not claim for the family pension of her late husband. It is stated that the petitioner is the only surviving wife of late Jangsei Kuki and that they shall abide by the decision of the Court. 6. Mr. R.S. Reisang, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the first wife of the deceased Jangsei Kuki, who died on 28.5.1998 in harness as driver in 512 Stores, Supply and Transport Company (GREF) and he was served in the said post under the third respondent till his death. He would submit that the deceased had nominated his second wife and his son Ginkhanlian from the petitioner to receive the family pension. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home by her in-laws, as the third wife and her children were also there in the same house. He would submit that the deceased had nominated his second wife and his son Ginkhanlian from the petitioner to receive the family pension. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial home by her in-laws, as the third wife and her children were also there in the same house. After being forced to leave her matrimonial home with her son, she is residing in a rented house at Bungmual New Lane, Churachandpur. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that having received information in regard to the family pension confronted the family members of her late husband, she came to know that the family pension was processed in the name of third wife. He submits that aggrieved by the action, the second wife filed O.S.No.2 of 2000 before the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Churachandpur to adjudicate the matter involving the family pension fund, wherein a compromise was entered between the parties and in terms of the compromise, the suit was decreed on 29.9.2000. Aggrieved by the compromise decree, the Union of India filed Civil Appeal No.1 of 2001 and the appeal was also dismissed on 20.1.2004. Against which, Regular Second Appeal No.4 of 2004 was filed before the Gauhati High Court. By the judgment dated 13.12.2002, the second appeal was disposed of with a direction that the appellant therein to release the pension and other financial benefits. 8. The learned senior counsel urged that the third wife made an affidavit foregoing the service claims and family pension benefits and during pendency of the appeal before the Gauhati High Court, the second wife passed away on 17.9.2004. In the meanwhile, the fifth respondent filed Original Petition before the Family Court, Churachandpur praying to claim family pension and to obtain an order declaring him as legal heir. By the order dated 31.5.2019, a settlement was made by the parties to declare that the fifth respondent as his successor and legal heir and to release the family pension and other service benefits under his name. In the compromise, it was settled that the benefits so released shall be equally distributed and shared among the parties. 9. By the order dated 31.5.2019, a settlement was made by the parties to declare that the fifth respondent as his successor and legal heir and to release the family pension and other service benefits under his name. In the compromise, it was settled that the benefits so released shall be equally distributed and shared among the parties. 9. The learned senior counsel next submitted that the office of the third respondent wrote a letter to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 14.3.2020 requesting to ascertain the details of the first wife and to produce the legal heir certificate to the office for further proceedings of the pension claim in her favour. The petitioner, after obtaining the legal heir certificate, has produced the same before the third respondent through her counsel. Despite the same, the respondent authorities have not released the family pension, instead they are prolonging the matter for one reason or the other. Since the respondent authorities are delaying in releasing the family pension, they ought to have pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Thus, the petitioner prayed for a direction to release the family pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 10. Per contra, Mr. Vijayanand Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the second wife of Jangsei Kuki filed suit in the year 2004 and the third wife gave an affidavit that since she has re-married, she does not desire to receive pension or any other benefits and that the petitioner alone remains amongst the alleged wives. Further, the sons of late Jangsei Kuki are not eligible for family pension, as they being more than 25 years age. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that due to multiple litigations and vacillating stance of various stake holders have resulted the delay and that the official respondents have not wantonly delayed in releasing the family pension. In view of the above, the official respondents are not liable to pay the interest as claimed by the petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner alone is the only surviving wife of late Jangsei Kuki and for such declaration by the Court, they have no objection. The fifth respondent, who born through the second wife, has no objection in allowing the writ petition. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner alone is the only surviving wife of late Jangsei Kuki and for such declaration by the Court, they have no objection. The fifth respondent, who born through the second wife, has no objection in allowing the writ petition. 13. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. 14. The petitioner is the first wife of the deceased Jangsei Kuki; the fifth respondent is the son of the deceased Jangsei Kuki born through the second wife who died on 17.9.2004 and the 6th respondent is the third wife. 15. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that the petitioner alone remains amongst the wives of late Jangsei Kuki to receive family pension and none of the sons of the deceased Jangsei Kuki are eligible for family pension as they crossed the age of 25 years. The learned counsel further submitted that the fifth respondent, who is the son of the deceased Jangsei Kuki born through the second wife has no objection and that the 6th respondent submitted an affidavit 16.10.2018 stating that she is not willing to claim the service and family pension benefits of Jangsei Kuki. In view of the admission made by the respondents 5 and 6 that the petitioner alone is the wife of Jangsei Kukiand; that the second wife died; and, that the third wife submitted an affidavit to the effect that she is willing to forego the family pension, the earlier litigations initiated by the parties are not further elaborated in this order. Furthermore, there is no dispute over the filing of suits and related appeals by the parties. However, from the records, the following emerge: The petitioner is the wife of late Jangsei Kuki and Ginkhanian is his son and after the demise of Jangsei Kuki, the petitioner did not re-marry again. Admittedly, Ginkhanian was one of the nominees. The second wife Chingzahoih died on 17.9.2004 and on being appointed in GREF as DVRMT in the year 1989 and while posted at 592 (I) TPT PI under (P) Pushpkak, Jangsei married the 6th respondent and nominated her for pension. Subsequent to the death of Jangsei Kuki, the 6th respondent re-married and, accordingly, she executed an affidavit to forego the family pension. 16. Subsequent to the death of Jangsei Kuki, the 6th respondent re-married and, accordingly, she executed an affidavit to forego the family pension. 16. The law is well settled that no Government servant having a spouse living shall enter into a second marriage with any person. Therefore, the marriage of the deceased Jangsei Kuki with the second and third wives are not legal and that too when the first wife was alive. Though the deceased Jangsei Kuki nominated the 6th respondent for receiving pension, DCRG etc., such nomination is admittedly void when the first wife is still alive. As stated supra, the nomination of Ginkhanian, born through the petitioner/first wife, as one of the nominees is valid. The fact remains that none of the sons of late Jangsei Kuku born through first, second and third wives are eligible for family pension, as they are more than 25 years old as on date. 17. Since the 6th respondent had sworn an affidavit stating that she will have no claim over the family pension of the deceased Jangsei Kuki, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of affidavit, which reads thus: '6. That, with reference to para No 8 of the writ petition the deponents have submitted that the respondent No.5 has filed an application before the Family Court, Churachandpur praying for declaring him as the legal heir of Late Jangsei Kuki as his mother a nominee has died. The answering deponents have admitted that the petitioner is the only surviving wife of Late Jangsei Kuki and that they shall abide by the decision of the Court.' Thus, it is clear that the respondents 5 and 6 have no claim over the family pension claimed by the petitioner. In view of the above, there is also no hurdle in declaring that the petitioner is the only surviving wife of late Jangsei Kuki to receive the family pension. 18. In view of the above, there is also no hurdle in declaring that the petitioner is the only surviving wife of late Jangsei Kuki to receive the family pension. 18. The subsequent developments after filing of the earlier litigations by the parties, namely the civil suit, first appeal and the second appeal up to the Gauhati High Court; no objection given by the fifth respondent during the course of arguments to release family pension in favour of the petitioner and the 6th respondent has sworn an affidavit dated 16.10.2018 stating that she is not willing to claim the service and family pension due to Jangsei Kuki as she being remarried with the younger brother of late Jangsei Kuki assume much importance in this matter. The aforesaid would clearly prove that the petitioner is the only surviving wife entitled and has right to receive the family pension on the death of the deceased Jangsei Kuki. 19. Coming to delay in releasing the family pension, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the earlier pronouncement of order/judgment, the petitioner being the legal heir of the deceased Jengsai Kuki is yet to receive the service benefits in the form of pension. Therefore, the official respondents may be directed to pay the pension with payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 20. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that in view of multiple litigations instituted by the parties and their contradictory statement, the delay occurred and the said delay cannot be termed as wanton. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the official respondents are ready to resolve this long pending issue for payment of dues of late Jangsei Kuki to the surviving legal heir. 21. Considering the arguments aforesaid, this Court is of the view that there is no wilful nor wanton delay on the part of the official respondents in releasing the family pension on the death of the deceased Jangsei Kuki and on the other hand, it was due to the various proceedings/litigations initiated by the family members of the deceased Jangsei Kuki. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the official respondents that the present case cannot be compared to release family pension of other persons who died in harness. Therefore, the official respondents are not liable to pay interest as claimed by the petitioner. 22. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the official respondents that the present case cannot be compared to release family pension of other persons who died in harness. Therefore, the official respondents are not liable to pay interest as claimed by the petitioner. 22. Admittedly, there is no delay on the part of the official respondents in granting family pension. In fact, by the letter dated 17.1.2020, the Accounts Officer (P) addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, 512 SSTC (GREF), inter alia, it has been stated that for avoiding unnecessary delay complete claim in respect of only eligible claimant may be submitted. Any affidavits, consents etc. will not be accepted regarding foregoing of FP/DCRG share to other family member. Further, the letter correspondences enclosed along with the affidavit-in-opposition clearly establish that there is no delay on the part of the official respondents in releasing the family pension. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the writ petition qua release of family pension in favour of the petitioner. Insofar as the direction to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the year 1999 on the amount of pension is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled for the said relief. 23. In the result, a) the writ petition is allowed in part, b) the official respondents are directed to release/pay the family pension to the petitioner, who is the first wife of the deceased Jangsei Kuki, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, c) If the official respondents fail to comply the direction aforesaid within the period stipulated, the official respondents are liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the month of August, 2021, i.e. from the month of filing of the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.