Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20935 of 2019 Petitioner :- Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, And 3 Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Bench At Allahabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sabhajeet Singh
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record.
2. This is a thoroughly misconceived and ill advised writ petition. It is not in dispute that Smt. Razia Begum filed Original Application No.330/00998 of 2015 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) stating that after death of first wife (late) Smt. Joyes, Victor (now deceased) married with her on 12.10.1988. For retiral benefits etc., Victor, who was working as an unskilled labour in Field Gun Factory, had nominated Smt. Razia Begum and one Aftab Alam. After death of Victor, succession certificate was also issued in favour of Smt. Razia Begum still petitioners denied retiral benefits to her on the ground that first wife was entitled and she is alive.
3. Tribunal, by means of judgment dated 09.02.2018, which is under challenge in the present writ petition, has decided that succession certificate has attained finality as nobody had challenged the same and nomination is also in favour of applicant-respondent 2, Razia Begum. Therefore, petitioners have no legal authority to deny payment of retiral benefits to applicant-respondent Smt. Razia Begum. However, Tribunal has given liberty to petitioners to inquire whether first wife is alive or not, and if, after making inquiry she is found alive or there is any daughter of first wife, then family pension shall be shared between them. Subject to above liberty, Tribunal has directed petitioners to pay outstanding retiral dues to applicant Smt. Razia Begum along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that retiral benefits can not be given to second wife Smt. Razia Begum and placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Smt. Premi Devi vs. Director of Directorate General Boarder and others 2007(1) Shim.L.C. 311 wherein first wife was having succession certificate and second wife was shown as nominee in the service record of deceased employee. After perusal of aforesaid judgment, we find that therein second wife was not legally married and only residing as wife for a long time with deceased employee and this fact was admitted, as is evident from para 5 of the judgment, which reads as under :
“Admittedly, the petitioner Premi Devi is the first wife of deceased Nanak Chand. It is also born out from the record that respondent No.4 was also living with the deceased as his wife for a long time, though not legally married, as is evident from the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition which are also substantiated by Panchayat record Annexure R4/1 referred above, which fact establishes long cohabitation of Nanak Chand, deceased with Smt.Bimla Devi.”
5. Court thereafter relied on Section 5 and 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) and Supreme Court judgment in Rampyari Bai vs. Municipal Corporation and Anr. 1987(Supp) SCC 253 observing that Smt. Smt. Bimla Devi, alleged second wife was neither legally wedded wife nor could have been validly nominated for pension. The said judgment has no application to the facts of present case.
6. Counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and othrs (2000) 2 SCC 431 but there also from the facts we find that the same has no application to the facts of present case. Therein Smt. Rameshwari Devi was first wife of one Narain Lal, who was Managing Director in Rural Development Aurhtority of State of Bihar and died in 1987. Smt. Yogmaya Devi was another wife, who was married with deceased employee when first wife was alive. In respect of children born out of wedlock between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi, High Court held that children are entitled to share family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and it will be admissible till they attain majority. This order was appealed by Smt. Rameshwari Devi before Division Bench but failed and then matter came to Supreme Court. In that case Supreme Court found that there was no nomination at all. Court upheld judgment of High Court that children of second wife were entitled for share in pensionary benefits. The above judgment also has no application to this case.
7. In the present case, we find that Tribunal has decided the matter following Supreme Court judgment in Vidhyadhari and others vs. Sukhrana Bai and others (2008) 2 SCC 238, paras 14 and 15 whereof are also reproduced in para 20 of judgment of Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for petitioners could not dispute that aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court relied by Tribunal is not distinguishable and instead wholly applicable to the facts of this case. In the circumstances, we find no manifest error in the judgment and order, passed by Tribunal, impugned in this petition.
9. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 KA