Jawala Parshad vs State of H.P and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner who was in the employment of the Respondent-department as Agriculture Inspector retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.9.2004. He was paid all the retrial benefits including pension. However, as per Pension Payment Order (PPO), dated 15th September, 2004, Annexure-PA, vide column 2, it was recorded that no stipulation with regard to payment of family pension was being made as it was a case of "NO FAMILY PENSIONER". The factual matrix in this respect is disputed by the Petitioner by way of averments set up vide paras 6(f) and (g) of the petition, which are extracted below:

f) That after dissolution of marriage with Smt. Pushpa Devi on 11.12.89, the applicant married Smt. Durga Devi on 21.4.90 in accordance with customary Hindu rites recognized by the Community. The applicant informed the department of his marriage with Smt. Durga Devi and requested the authorities concerned to record Smt. Durga Devi as his nominee being legally married life in applicants'' ''service book''. Smt. Durga Devi is surviving and we have one daughter Kumari Swasti, age 13 years and one son Akashya Kumar, age 9 years who are reading in the schools.

g) That the aforesaid second marriage by the applicant during the life time of Smt. Pushpa Devi is not a nullity since, her case is covered u/s 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Smt. Durga Devi is a legally wedded wife of the applicant for all intents and purposes and therefore, she is entitled to family pension after death of the applicant. So far as the aforesaid minor children are concerned, under no circumstances whatsoever, they cannot be denied proportionate family pension in accordance with law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.

On the above averments, the petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):

i) To direct the Respondent No. 3 to amend the Certificate and Report at Annexure ''PA'' dated 15.9.2004 on the admissibility of Family Pension to Smt. Durga Devi, legally wedded wife of the applicant when it become due i.e; after the death of the applicant.

ii) To issue directions to the Respondent No. 3 to extend the benefit of family pension to Kumari Swati, daughter and Akshaya Kumar, son of the applicant in their turn.

In reply, Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide para 2 of the preliminary submissions:

That the O.A is not maintainable as applicant has not at all submitted divorce deed till to date in as much as the applicant neither supplied an proof of second marriage but claiming family pensionary benefits whereas first performance/right goes to the first wife of the retiree/applicant whose name has been appeared in the service book and G.P.G etc. The photocopies of nomination is annexed as Annexure R-1. There is nothing apparent even from the application that the applicant has given divorce to 1st wife Smt. Pushpa Devi who is appear in nomination. As per the claim and no proof/record has been supplied by the applicant to the Respondent by giving to repeated opportunities but no avail. A copy of letter is annexed R-2 and R-3. Therefore the applicant has been nothing to be agitated as no right of the applicant has been caused as such the application deserves to be dismissed straight way.

In view of the above reply and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the Petitioner making separate representations supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to Respondents No. 1 and 2 on the one hand and Respondent No. 3 on the other, within a period of two months from today, the same shall be considered and final decision taken in the matter within next three months in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, if so, desired.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.