Smt.Tara Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—The petitioner claimed herself to be the wife of late Shri Dina Nath, who retired as Assistant Malaria Officer on 30.11.1991 on attaining the age of superannuation, from the respondent-Department. His pension case was finalized vide PPO No. 23412/HP. He was the recipient of his retiral benefits and the pension. He died on 22.02.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent-Department for the grant of family pension being the only legally wedded wife of the deceased husband. Her request was not acceded to, on the ground that her name did not find mentioned as the wife of deceased Dina Nath in the service record. Accordingly, she issued legal notice. Whereas, the third respondent informed her that late Shri Dina Nath while submitting his pension papers mentioned the name of Smt. Suneharo Devi, respondent No. 5 as his wife and did not make any reference to the petitioner.

It is contended in the present petition that she fall in the definition of the family for the purposes of family pension as defined in Rule 14 (1) (b) of the Family Pension Rules, 1954, as such entitled for the family pension being the legally wedded wife of Dina Nath.

To substantiate her claim, the petitioner placed reliance upon copy of Pariwar register Annexure A1=P5 of Bldwara Panchayat wherein she has been shown to be the wife of deceased alongwith Suneharo (respondent No. 5), copy of Will Annexure P6 dated 15.11.1998 executed by deceased Dina Nath wherein he admitted her to be his first wife and also respondent Suneharo. The mutation Annexure P7 was attested on the basis of the Will wherein Tara Devi petitioner and Suneharo respondent No. 5 both were shown to be the wives of deceased Dina Nath, per pedigree-table drawn over it. Petitioner also placed reliance upon copy of Higher Secondary (Part I) Examination, wherein Sunita Kumari her daughter from Dina Nath is shown to have born on 30.05.1956. The reliance has also been put on the statements of Bhagat Ram, Ganga Ram, Shiv Ram, Smt. Reshamu Devi, Member Panchayat and Roshan Lal, younger brother of Dina Nath (Annexures P9 and P10), recorded during enquiry.

Whereas, Suneharo (respondent No. 5) in her reply submitted that the details of the members of the family were provided by Dina Nath in the prescribed form (Annexure R-2/1), on the basis of which the pension papers were prepared. She denied that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of deceased Dina Nath. She disputed the entries in the Pariwar register. It is also her contention that during the life time of Dina Nath, petitioner did not agitate the matter and controversy was only racked-up after his death. Since she being the legally wedded wife of deceased, as such is entitled for the family pension.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 also referred to the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 290 of 1974, decided on 18.08.1982 (Annexure R-5/1) whereby the defence of the deceased husband in the departmental enquiry was that he was already married to Tara Devi as well as Suneharo before he joined the service.

Record was produced before this Court for perusal to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties. Said Shri Dina Nath had joined the service in the year 1950.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on going through the record, I find that both the parties, i.e., petitioner and respondent No. 5 are claiming family pension to the exclusion of each other asserting each of them to be either the first wife or legally wedded wife of Dina Nath, whereas the documents and the record reveal that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 Suneharo Devi are the widows of deceased. There is no clinching evidence as to when they or any of them had married Dina Nath. Both are shown to be the wives of Dina Nath in Panchayat record.

Legally the second wife after coming into force Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not entitled for family pension. Because of the rival claims and highly disputed facts, no relief can be granted in the writ to the petitioner. As such, the petition is dismissed. However, aggrieved party is at liberty to seek the declaration of her status from the Civil Court.