Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 286 (UTT)

Kaushalya Negi @ Sona Devi v. Union of India

2024-04-30

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to make regular payment of family pension to the petitioner and also to pay the arrears since November, 2013 with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. Facts of the case necessary for adjudication of present controversy are that husband of petitioner late Ram Singh Negi was serving in OPTO Electronics Factory, Raipur, District Dehradun who retired on superannuation on 30.04.2003. After superannuation, husband of petitioner provided joint photograph and other details to respondent no. 3 for pension which was duly attested and accepted by the Department. Unfortunately, petitioner’s husband passed away on 23.01.2011, and after his death, petitioner applied for grant of family pension which was duly sanctioned and granted to her. Suddenly, in the month of November, 2013, pension was stopped by Punjab National Bank, Branch Adhoiwala, District Dehradun distributing branch stating that in the ‘Pension Payment Order’ (PPO) of late Ram Singh Negi, Ex Junior Works Manager, OPTO Electronics Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, name of his wife has been mentioned as ‘Sona Devi’ and not that of petitioner i.e. ‘Kaushalya Negi’. Inspection of the record revealed that in documents, instead of name of petitioner, name of ‘Sona Devi’ was transcribed. 4. The petitioner submitted a representation on 20.03.2014 supported by an affidavit for correcting the name of petitioner in the pension records and other relevant documents. The respondent no. 3-General Manager asked the petitioner to publish a public notice to change/ amend her name in the Gazette of India and intimate the Department for necessary action vide letter dated 26.10.2024. Letter dated 26.10.2024 was followed by another letter dated 06.02.2015 wherefrom it transpired that one ‘Sona Devi, R/o Village Todi, Patti Sarjula, Post Bhagirathipuram, District Tehri Garhwal’ also alleged her to be the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi, who also claimed family pension. This is how the dispute arose. Subsequently, on an enquiry having been conducted by the respondents, under the hands of respondent no. 2, vide Annexure No. 6, the pension, which was sanctioned in favour of petitioner, has been stopped with immediate effect, and it is pointed out that the documents submitted by ‘Ms. This is how the dispute arose. Subsequently, on an enquiry having been conducted by the respondents, under the hands of respondent no. 2, vide Annexure No. 6, the pension, which was sanctioned in favour of petitioner, has been stopped with immediate effect, and it is pointed out that the documents submitted by ‘Ms. Sona Devi, R/o Village Todi, Patti Sarjula, Post Bhagirathipuram, District Tehri Garhwal’ are under enquiry by the civil authority. 5. After enquiry, it was found that Smt. Sona Devi is the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi while petitioner ‘Smt. Kaushalya Negi’ is the second wife to whom late Ram Singh Negi had married. The enquiry report is also on record annexed as Annexure No. 5 along with the counter affidavit which also reflects and concludes that Smt. Sona Devi is the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi while petitioner is the second wife and in the service records, there is nomination of ‘Sona Devi’ and there is no change of nomination by late Ram Singh Negi. The enquiry further directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of enquiry, as from the record, it is reflected that no further action was taken by respondents regarding cancellation of family pension sanctioned in favour of petitioner. It is feeling aggrieved by aforesaid stoppage of pension by respondents, petitioner is before this Court. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it is stated that since Smt. Sona Devi was the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi, therefore, the family pension has rightly been stopped; it was further held out that the family pension was wrongly sanctioned in favour of petitioner who got the same sanctioned by writing name ‘alias Sona Devi’ in the application form submitted for grant of family pension. 7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that although, it is true that the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi was ‘Sona Devi’ but the marriage between the parties i.e. Sona Devi and late Ram Singh Negi was dissolved by way of a decree of divorce by the Court of law vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the District Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Original Suit No. 27 of 2005 (Ram Singh vs. Sona Devi). The said judgment has been brought on record by respondents themselves by way of Annexure No. 6 to the counter affidavit. 8. From a perusal of the judgment passed by the Court of District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, it appears that it was an ex parte decree against the first wife Smt. Sona Devi but the perusal of judgment further shows that the divorce suit was very well in the knowledge of Smt. Sona Devi as the summons were served upon her and she sought time for filing the written statement, which she did not, and finally, the case was directed to be proceeded ex parte against her by order dated 19.09.2006. It is admitted to both the parties that against this ex parte judgment, no further proceeding was initiated by the first wife Smt. Sona Devi and thus, the said judgment attained finality. It is further argued by learned Counsel for petitioner that it is only after the decree of divorce i.e. 14.12.2006, late Ram Singh Negi solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 15.10.2007 and thus, this impediment cannot come in the way of petitioner for getting family pension. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Union of India submitted that the family pension was sanctioned to petitioner only after ascertaining the fact that marriage between the first wife and late Ram Singh Negi was already dissolved by way of a decree of divorce by the orders of Court of competent jurisdiction, and it is only by the orders of Bank, the family pension was stopped. 10. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and also having gone through the record of the case, it transpires that petitioner cannot be denied the family pension as the marriage between the petitioner and her husband late Ram Singh Negi was solemnized on 15.10.2007 i.e. only after the legal divorce between the earlier parties to the matrimony. Therefore, it cannot be termed that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of late Ram Singh Negi. Secondly, the marriage has not been solemnized during subsistence of first marriage, and therefore, petitioner has got every right to continue with the family pension which has already been sanctioned in her favour by the respondent authorities. Therefore, it cannot be termed that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of late Ram Singh Negi. Secondly, the marriage has not been solemnized during subsistence of first marriage, and therefore, petitioner has got every right to continue with the family pension which has already been sanctioned in her favour by the respondent authorities. Once the respondent authorities admitted this fact that petitioner is entitled to get family pension, the Bank has no locus or authority to stop the payment of family pension to petitioner on whatsoever grounds, so alleged. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release family pension to the petitioner, and also arrears of family pension with effect from November, 2013, immediately. The arrears of pension shall carry interest @ 7% per annum. 12. No order as to costs. 13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.