The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs:-
"26(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the respondent and be further pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to nominate the petitioner as nominee of deceased Kashiben in the pension file and be further pleased to direct the respondent to release family pension to the petitioner from the year 2008;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directing declaring that the petitioner I legally entitled to receive family pension as legal heir being legally wedded husband of deceased Kashiben;"
2. One Smt. Kashiben Parmar was an employee of the respondent - Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. She was married to one Shri Pitambardas Parmar. Present petitioner claims that he is the brother of said Pitambardas Parmar. The said Pitambardas Parmar died in April-1958. The petitioner claim that after death of said Shri Pitambardas Parmar, who is his elder brother, he married with Smt. Kashiben Parmar. The petitioner also claims that subsequently, said Smt. Kashiben Parmar made application to the respondent - competent authority to include name of the petitioner as her nominee for retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, etc., which may be paid to her. Smt. Kashiben Parmar died in May-2008. It appears that after the death of Smt. Kashiben Parmar, the petitioner herein started claiming benefit of family pension from the respondent - Corporation. The request was not entertained by the respondent - Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11610 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.8.2011 and the petitioner was permitted to make representation. Earlier also, the petitioner had submitted a representation. The representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the said order dated 29.8.2011 has been rejected vide order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the respondent - competent authority.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order hence, present petition.
3. It is relevant to mention that nowhere, until now, the petitioner has placed on record any material to demonstrate that marriage between him and said Shri Kashiben Parmar had taken place. There is no material or cogent document or other evidence to establish the factum of marriage between the petitioner and said Shri Kashiben Parmar.
4. The petitioner is, even during hearing of present petition, not able to mention exact date on which the marriage was (allegedly) solemnized. All that the petitioner could mention is that he got married with said Smt. Kashiben Parmar somewhere in 1960. Any material establishing the marriage was never submitted by the petitioner to the respondent - competent authority. The competent authority has considered all relevant facts in the order dated 8.12.2011 and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish the factum of his marriage with the said Smt. Kashiben Parmar. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is also failed to establish that he stands covered within the purview of the term "Family" as defined under the applicable Rules. Unless the factum of "Family" is duly established, the petitioner can be considered brother of the deceased, i.e. brother of the husband of Smt. Kashiben Parmar and would not come within the purview of the term "Family" since at the time of the death of petitioner's brother, said Smt. Kashiben Parmar (i.e. wife of petitioner's brother) was alive and after the death of Smt. Kashiben Parmar, petitioner is not able to establish factum of marriage.
The competent authority has, therefore, rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that there is no evidence on record to satisfy the authority that the petitioner got married with Smt. Kashiben Parmar or he is her legally wedded husband.
Hence, it is not possible to find any fault in the decision of the competent authority.
The petition does not call for any interference with the impugned order dated 8.12.2011.
The petition fails and stands disposed of accordingly.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top