Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 145 (AP)

Gnana Jyothi v. Accountant General

2023-01-19

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief : “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction to direct the respondent No.2 to take necessary action to cancel the Family Pension granted to the Respondent No.4 vide P.P.O.No.23-012826 SP and STO and PPO ID 0103-22381 and consequently grant the Family Pension to the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of the said Late Jayanandam and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Mr. Swati Guda, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader, Services-I; Mr. K. Swarna Seshu and Mr. S. Harinatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Late Yandava Jayanandam, who worked as Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Itchapuram and retired from service in the month of July, 2011. The petitioner and late Jayanandam got married as per Christian Customs and rights on 07.06.1990. Out of legal wedlock, they blessed a daughter by name Sanjana on 04.05.1994. Subsequently the late Jayanandam developed illicit intimacy with 4th respondent and took her to his house and left the conjugal society of the petitioner in the year 2006. The marriage between the petitioner and late Jayanandam subsisted till his death as the marriage was not dissolved at any point of time. The husband of the petitioner was died on 20.06.2016, leaving behind him, the petitioner and her daughter Sanjana as his Class-I legal heirs, who are legally entitled for all the pensionery benefits of the deceased husband. The petitioner’s daughter filed F.C.M.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Family Judge-cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram against her father Late Jayanandam and the Family Court also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner’s daughter and also holding that the petitioner and Sanjana are the wife and daughter of the Late Jayanandam. Even in the recovery petitioner claiming arrears of the maintenance, the said Jayanandam paid the amounts to the daughter of the petitioner and at that stage unfortunately he died suddenly. After death of said Jayanandam, the 4th respondent applied for Family Member Certificate before the Tahsildar, who rejected the same and questioning her relationship with deceased. Even in the recovery petitioner claiming arrears of the maintenance, the said Jayanandam paid the amounts to the daughter of the petitioner and at that stage unfortunately he died suddenly. After death of said Jayanandam, the 4th respondent applied for Family Member Certificate before the Tahsildar, who rejected the same and questioning her relationship with deceased. But the respondents sanctioned the family pension to the 4th respondent by keeping the petitioner aside, inspite of receiving the legal notice also, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed. 4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that as per documents i.e. FMC/ Nomination attached to the pension proposals the 4th respondent was noted as wife and the date of marriage is noted as 22.11.1992. The descriptive rolls were also enclosed with the joint photos of the petitioner and 4th respondent with her specimen signature. The pension was authorized to Y. Jayanandam, pensioner with Family Pension beneficiary in the name of Y. Ratna Kumari/4th respondent vide proceedings dated 18.10.2011 as she was nominated in the pension papers. Further this respondent is only Pension Authorizing Authority and not Pension Sanctioning Authority. Therefore it is the Department that has to take action either to set right the pension papers or to decide to whom the Family Pension shall have to be paid. This respondent will implement the orders from Pension Sanctioning Authority or any Court orders in this regard and release authorization orders for drawing of Pension. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that the deceased employee has registered the name of 4th respondent in all office records as his nominee and submitted his pension proposals for sanction of Family Pension in the event of his death. Further as could be verified with the Sterilisation Certificate pasted in the Service Register, the Medical Officer, PPP Unit, Parvatipuram has certified that he had conducted Tubectomy operation on 29.09.2007 to Smt. Yandava Ratnam, wife of Jayanandam with two living children vide Reg.No.9/362. The petitioner is claiming as the wife of the deceased, consequent on his death on 20.06.2016. Further as could be verified with the Sterilisation Certificate pasted in the Service Register, the Medical Officer, PPP Unit, Parvatipuram has certified that he had conducted Tubectomy operation on 29.09.2007 to Smt. Yandava Ratnam, wife of Jayanandam with two living children vide Reg.No.9/362. The petitioner is claiming as the wife of the deceased, consequent on his death on 20.06.2016. The petitioner has kept silent all these years i.e from 2011 to 2016 i.e from the date of retirement and till the date of death of the deceased and now claiming that the petitioner is the wedded wife of the deceased employee. Therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. The 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that the marriage between 4th respondent and deceased employee was performed as per Hindu customs on 10.02.1989 at Sri Satyanarayana Swamivari Devasthanam, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. Out of legal wedlock, they blessed four children. The 4th respondent was declared as nominee and the same was entered in the service register as well as pension proposals. The husband of the 4th petitioner was retired from service on attaining the superannuation on 30.06.2011. Subsequently he was died on 20.06.2016. After death of her husband, the pension is paying to her. The petitioner is a Retired Government Servant and drawing pension. The relation of the petitioner is being running the Church, who issued marriage Certificate to the petitioner alleging that their marriage performed at Church. Therefore the said Certificate is a fabricated and cooked up one. The petitioner even did not attend the last funeral rites of husband of the 4th respondent and that there is no relationship between them as husband and wife as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is observed by this Court that there is a rival claim between the petitioner and 4th respondent and disputing the very relationship with deceased employee. Further the Marriage Certificate as produced by the petitioner is a cooked up documents for the purpose of claiming benefits as the said certificate issued by the relations of the petitioner, who is running the Church as alleged by the petitioner. Further the Marriage Certificate as produced by the petitioner is a cooked up documents for the purpose of claiming benefits as the said certificate issued by the relations of the petitioner, who is running the Church as alleged by the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Family Court directed the deceased employee to pay the maintenance to the daughter of the petitioner in F.C.M.C.No.11 of 2014, which shows that the Court below also observed that the petitioner and one Sanajana are the wife and daughters of the deceased employee. Therefore it is sufficient to prove the relationship between them. Hence the petitioner is entitled for the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee. 8. To rebut the same, learned counsel for the 4th respondent would contend that except relationship with the petitioner, the deceased denied all the averments and contentions in the Maintenance Petition filed before the Family Court and that at no point time, declared the petitioner was the wife of the deceased employee. The petitioner cannot take the shelter of the orders passed by the Family Court for declaring her to be a legally wedded wife. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Others”, (2000) 2 SCC 431 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench discussed the Judgment passed earlier vide SCC P.457, Para 3 which reads as follows: “11…… “There is a string of judgments of this Court whereunder strict proof of solemnization of the second marriage, with due observance of rituals and ceremonies, he has been insisted upon. The prosecution evidence in the criminal complaint may have fallen short of those standards but that does not mean that the State was in any way debarred from invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which forbids a government servant to marry a second time without the permission of the Government. The prosecution evidence in the criminal complaint may have fallen short of those standards but that does not mean that the State was in any way debarred from invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which forbids a government servant to marry a second time without the permission of the Government. But, here the respondent being a Hindu, could never have been granted permission by the Government to marry a second time because of his personal law forbidding such marriage., It was thus beyond the ken of the Tribunal to have scuttled the departmental proceedings against the respondent on the footing that such question of bigamy should normally not be taken up for decision in departmental enquiries, as the decisions of competent courts tending to be decisions in rem would stand at the highest pedestal. There was a clear fallacy in such view because for purpose of Rule 28, such strict standards, as would warrant a conviction for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, may not, to begin with, be necessary”. 12…. 13. But then it is not necessary for us to consider if Narain Lal could have been charged of misconduct having contracted a second marriage when his first wife was living as no disciplinary proceedings were held against him during his life time. In the present case, we are concerned only with the question as to who is entitled to the family pension and death-cum- retirement gratuity on the death of Narain La. When there are two claimants to the pensionary benefits of a deceased employee and there is no nomination wherever required the State Government has to hold an inquiry as to the rightful claimant. Disbursement of pension cannot wait till a civil court pronounces upon the respective rights of the parties., That would certainly be a long-drawn affair. The doors of civil courts are always open to any party after and even before a decision is reached by the State Government as to who is entitled to pensionary benefits. Of course, inquiry conducted by the State Government cannot be a sham affair and it could also not be arbitrary. The doors of civil courts are always open to any party after and even before a decision is reached by the State Government as to who is entitled to pensionary benefits. Of course, inquiry conducted by the State Government cannot be a sham affair and it could also not be arbitrary. The decision has to be taken in a bonafide, reasonable and rational manner…….” Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, the 4th respondent cannot claim the retiral and pension benefits of the deceased employee by false representation. When there is a rival claim between the parties, it has to be proved on enquiry, but in this case no enquiry has been conducted by the respondent authorities or no Civil Court passed an order stating that the petitioner and the deceased employee is wife and husband. In such circumstances, the claim of the 4th respondent is highly illegal and arbitrary. 10. No doubt, there is a dispute with regard to relationship between the parties as contended by the petitioner, it requires elaborate enquiry while processing the pension to the parties. Though the petitioner has raised objection after long elapse of several years and that the respondent authorities might have sanctioned the pension to the 4th respondent basing on the material on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents allotted the pension to the 4th respondent illegally without considering the request of the petitioner. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely applies to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra and in the instant case, it requires elaborate trial to declare the relationship between the parties. Further the petitioner is drawing pension and she is a retired employee, which is undisputed fact. 11. This Court finds that there were several disputed facts arisen in deciding the issue, which this Court cannot be looked into on the point of jurisdiction and it has to be decided by competent Fora. In the absence of any order to declare the petitioner and deceased employee as wife and husband from the competent civil court, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted as prayed for. 12. In the absence of any order to declare the petitioner and deceased employee as wife and husband from the competent civil court, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted as prayed for. 12. Under these circumstances, This Court is inclined to disposed of the writ petition, while granting liberty to the either of the parties to approach competent civil court of law to work out their grievance, if any, for grant of pension and other benefits relating to the deceased employee to them, which is binding on the result of the said claim. 13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.