Sureshi Devi & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred by the fourth-respondent in the writ petition aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the official

respondents to consider the respondent-writ petitioner’s application for release of pension and post retiral dues, on presentation of his individual

photograph, and they shall not compel the petitioner to submit the joint photograph of the petitioner and his wife, as the wife of the petitioner was not

coming forward to submit the joint photograph. This order was passed on 13.12.2019 when the writ petition was listed for the first time for admission.

No notice was issued in the writ petition to the fourth respondent, much less was she given an opportunity of being heard.

While we were initially inclined to set aside the order under appeal, and to restore the interlocutory application to file, to enable the appellant-fourth

respondent herein to file her counter affidavit, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that the

petitioners retiral benefits have been stopped in its entirety only on the ground that the appellant was not willing to submit her joint photograph along

with the respondent-writ petitioner; it is the appellant’s grievance that she has not been shown as a nominee for the purposes of family pension,

which would have enabled her to secure family pension on the demise of the petitioner; in paragraph 9 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner has

categorically stated that he has no objection for the grant of family pension to the appellant-fourth respondent; this Court may record the undertaking

furnish by him, on instructions from the petitioner, that the petitioner would nominate the appellant-fourth respondent as his nominee for grant of family

pension; the respondent-writ petitioner undertakes not to change the nomination which would enable the appellant-fourth respondent to receive family

pension on his demise; and this Court may consider directing the Chief Medical Officer to fix a date on which both the respondent-writ petitioner, and

the appellant-fourth respondent, would be present for submitting a joint photograph before the Chief Medical Officer, and to record the name of the

appellant-fourth respondent as his nominee for grant of family pension, which would enable the respondent-writ petitioner to receive his retiral

benefits.

On the other hand, Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the appellant-fourth respondent, would submit that the respondent-writ petitioner had

deserted the appellant-fourth respondent and their son; he had, even without obtaining a divorce from the appellant, started living with another woman;

in the application form, filed by him for grant of family pension, he had shown the name of his son, through the other woman, as his nominee; and the

petitioner’s claim that he would nominate the appellant-fourth respondent is merely an afterthought, and the bonafides of the respondent-writ

petitioner is suspect.

Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel, would fairly state that the appellant’s claim is restricted only to her nomination to enable her to receive

family pension on the demise of the respondent-writ petitioner; and she has no claim regarding the respondent-writ petitioner’s other retiral dues

subject to his complying with the order of maintenance passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would fairly state that the appellant-

fourth respondent would present herself before the second respondent-Chief Medical Officer on the date and time fixed by him.

In the light of the rival submissions, now made by learned counsel on either side, the order under appeal is set-asi9de and, instead, the second-

respondent-Chief Medical Officer, is directed to fix a date, for both the appellant-fourth respondent and the respondent-writ petitioner to be present

before him, for submission of the joint photograph. On the date and time fixed by the second respondent-Chief Medical Officer, both the appellant-and

the respondent-writ petitioner shall be present before him and comply with their undertaking noted hereinabove.

In terms of the undertaking furnished to this Court the respondent-writ petitioner shall nominate the appellant-fourth respondent exclusively as his

nominee for the purposes of family pension, which would enable her, on his demise, to receive family pension. On such a declaration being furnished

by the respondent-writ petitioner, and on both the respondent-writ petitioner and the appellant-fourth respondent submitting their joint photograph, the

second respondent-Chief Medical Officer shall fix any date, within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order, process the

respondent-writ petitioner’s claim for payment of retiral dues, determine the amount payable, and make payment thereof within three months from

the date on which the joint photograph is submitted.

The Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that, in the light the order now passed by this Court, the

cause in the writ petition does not survive. WPSS No. 2750 of 2019 is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. No costs.