Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 233 (TRI)

Srimati Biswas v. State of Tripura

2022-05-17

ARINDAM LODH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: '(i) Issue rule calling upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus or like nature, shall not be issued commanding the respondent Nos 1-3 and each one of them to transmit fresh proposal for family pension of the petitioner to A.G., Tripura who will dispose of the matter within a fixed period upon receipt of the proposal. (ii) Issue rule upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondents and each one of them, shall not commanded by a writ of mandamus or like nature, to treat your petitioner as widow of deceased employee and to consider grant of family pension to the petitioner forthwith. (iii) Issue rule upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of certiorari, shall not be issued sending for records from A.G., Tripura more particularly the documents submitted by the petitioner through Inspector of Schools for rendering substantial justice to the petitioner by quashing the decision of the A.G., Tripura to cause delay in grant family pension on the basis of the proposals sent by the Inspector of Schools. (iv) Issue rule upon the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to act in conformity with the representation made by the petitioner dated 10.08.2021 towards grant of family pension. (v) In the interim, an order may kindly be passed directing the respondents and each one of them to provide provisional family pension to your humble petitioner to survive. ' 2. Shortly stated, the petitioner is a widow of a retired Government employee. The employee concerned, Late Jatindra Biswas, who is the husband of the petitioner, died on 09.01.2013 while he was in service under the State-respondents. During his service period and long before his death, the husband, late Jatindra Biswas re-married the petitioner after the death of his first wife according to Hindu rites and customs, as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act. After the death of Jatindra Biswas his employer (Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura) forwarded all necessary papers and furnished all information to the Accountant General(respondent no. 4) requesting to accord sanction. After the death of Jatindra Biswas his employer (Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Tripura) forwarded all necessary papers and furnished all information to the Accountant General(respondent no. 4) requesting to accord sanction. The death certificate of his first wife was also submitted. The petitioner has also produced the survival certificate, ration card, Aadhaar card and all other relevant documents. The respondent no. 4 had made so many queries during the process to the petitioner and the petitioner responded to all the queries. The latest query is that the petitioner has to produce the marriage certificate to the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 has further built up a case of bigamy. As is revealed from paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent no. 4, in that process, a substantial time of 7 years has been elapsed over without addressing the legitimate claim of the petitioner. 3. I have heard Mr. T. D. Majumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by T. Halam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Majumdar, learned Asstt. SG, who argued the case on behalf of the respondent no. 4 (Accountant General, Tripura). Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appeared for the State-respondent (respondent no. 1, 2, and 3) under which the petitioner was an employee and died during his service. 4. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents by producing the service book of late Jatindra Biswas has submitted that there is no adverse remark against the petitioner. There is no mention of the name of the petitioner as first wife or second wife of the deceased husband in the service book, and only the date of death of the employee is mentioned in the service book. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions as well as the facts emanated from the pleadings exchanged between the parties. I have also gone through the relevant documents and records. After going through the records, it comes to light that after a exhaustive inquiry, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khowai Sub-Division has issued survival certificate in favour of the petitioner where the name of the petitioner has been recorded as are of the survivors of late Jatindra Biswas. No claim or any objection was raised on behalf of any other survivors for extending pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. No claim or any objection was raised on behalf of any other survivors for extending pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. More importantly, one of the sons namely, Sri Saptam Biswas has sworn an affidavit and declared that her mother late Sujani Biswas i.e. the first wife of late Jatindra Biswas died on 06.11.1996 and his father Jatindra Biswas died on 09.01.2013, and that he was a witness to the marriage of his deceased father with the present petitioner, Smt. Srimati Biswas. 6. From Annexure R/4 to the writ petition, submitted by the State-respondents, it comes to light that being asked to produce the marriage certificate by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner had furnished a copy of the marriage certificate (in original) issued by the Gaon Pradhan that confirmed the fact of solemnisation of marriage between Jatindra Biswas and the petitioner herein. 7. Question may arise that the certificate issued by the Gaon Pradhan regarding marriage of the petitioner and Jatindra Biswas, whether has any legal sanction, but, in the context of the case, the said certificate gives extra support to the marriage of the petitioner with Jatindra Biswas. That marriage certificate also forwarded by the Inspector of Schools, Khowai to the respondent no. 4 (Annexure R/4). There is no prescription of law that one must have marriage certificate to establish his/her marriage. In the case on hand, it is established the marriage of the petitioner with Late Jatindra Biswas was solemnized in the year 1996 in compliance of the requirements of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that is, after due observance of 'Homa and Saptapadi'. 8. Considering all the documents and relevant records and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, in the opinion of this court, there is no impediment for the respondent no. 4 to accord sanction for releasing the pensionary benefit in favour of the petitioner. Production of marriage certificate by the competent authority is not a sine qua non to prove the marriage of a person provided the said marriage is solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs, and not under Special Marriage Act, 1954. The respondent no. 4 has failed to make out a case to accord sanction for releasing pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. 9. In the light of above facts and circumstances, I direct the respondent no. The respondent no. 4 has failed to make out a case to accord sanction for releasing pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. 9. In the light of above facts and circumstances, I direct the respondent no. 4 to accord sanction for the purpose of providing pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. The State-respondents shall not raise any question regarding the release of the pension and other benefits in favour of the petitioner. The entire process shall be completed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order since the respondents have failed to release pension and to provide the retiral benefits to the unfortunate widow till today. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed and thus, disposed of.