Gurmit Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—In this petition the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 9.3.2010 (Annexure P-11) vide which the family pension of the petitioner has been provisionally stopped. The petitioner was earlier married to one Harbhajan Singh son of Shangara Singh, but on account of differences, this marriage was dissolved before a Panchayat. Whether this process was legitimate or not, may not be a question germane to the present controversy. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was married to Gurdev Singh younger brother of her erstwhile husband Harbhajan Singh. Gurdev Singh died on 11.1.2001 which is established from the Death Certificate Annexure P-4. The deceased being an employee of the respondent/Corporation and the petitioner being his widow, the family pension was given to her. A complaint was preferred by one of the residents of the village alleging fraud and stating that the petitioner was drawing the pension without any legitimate claim as she was married to Harbhajan Singh and there was no valid divorce. A writ petition came to be filed in which orders to investigate the matter were passed. The respondent/Corporation then ordered the Inspector Vigilance, P.S.E.B. to look into the matter and a final report Annexure P-9 was submitted in which it was concluded that the petitioner had re-married Gurdev Singh and a valid certificate of the petitioner being a widow had been issued by the office of the D.C., Jalandhar, even though the other records such as voters-list etc. continue to indicate the petitioner as the wife of Harbhajan Singh. It was further held in this report that the allegations of preparation of forgery of documents regarding the marriage of the petitioner with Gurdev Singh by other accomplices such as Fakir Singh were not established. In short, the sum and substance of the report was that the petitioner was legitimately married to Gurdev Singh who died in harness.

In this view of the matter, when the solitary impediment in the grant of family pension to the petitioner was removed by the report of the enquiry officer who was appointed by the respondents themselves, there was no occasion for the respondents to persist with the impugned order and ordinarily, the family pension ought to have been restored to the petitioner.

No justification has been offered by the respondents except to insist on the factual matrix of the matter that the voter-card and the other material still indicated the petitioner to be the wife of Harbhajan Singh.

This justification cannot be accepted by the Court in view of the fact that the enquiry officer was appointed by the respondent/Corporation itself in order to eradicate any doubts about the legitimacy of the claim of the petitioner and once such a report came in favour of the petitioner, there ought not to have been any hesitation on the part of the respondents to restore the benefit to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is therefore, totally unjust and unsustainable and has resulted in undue hardship to the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore, accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the family pension of the petitioner forthwith i.e. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. For insisting upon an unjust stand, the respondents are burdened with costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall also be paid to the petitioner.