Denial of family pension cannot be justified without clear evidence of marriage validation, as admissions and supporting documentation must be duly considered.

JUDGMENT :

MAULIK J.SHELAT, J.

1. Heard Mr. Aakash D. Modi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 as also Mr. Sikander Saiyed, learned advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4, at length.

2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate as also Mr. Sikander Saiyed, learned advocate, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. The present Writ Petition is filed under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“15 (A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order to quash and set aside order dated 17/18.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.2 Authority which is at Annexure-M to this petition.

(AA) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or direction to quash and set-aside order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the respondent NO.2 Authority which is Annexure-Q to this petition.

(B) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order to direct the present respondent corporation to extend the benefit of family pension and other incidental benefits to the present petitioner being legal heirs- widow of the deceased employee, as per the pension scheme of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.

(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the present respondent corporation to pay the amount of arrears of pension from the date of the death of the deceased employee, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to the present petitioner.

(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to direct the present respondent corporation to pay provisional pension to the present petitioner.

(E) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass any other further Order/s as are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

4. The short controversy is germane to this matter in regard to the refusal of petitioner’s claim by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) to receive a family pension upon demise of her husband who was a permanent employee of the Corporation.

5. As per the case of the petitioner, one Mr. Mohammadhanif Abdulsamad Shaikh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased employee’), married with petitioner on 05.12.2007 as per the rituals of Muslim law. The Nikah Nama is also submitted by the petitioner before the respondent – Corporation to claim benefits of family pension upon death of the deceased employee on 16.01.2011. Prior to marriage with the petitioner, the deceased employee married with one Rehanabanu, who died on 15.07.2007. Out of said wedlock (1^st marriage), respondent Nos.3 & 4 were born.

5.1. There appears some dispute as regards receipt of retiral dues between the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 & 4, happen to be children of deceased employee. The family settlement appears to have been arrived at between the parties, thereby, petitioner received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and rest of the retiral dues received by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 - children of deceased employee. So far as claim of family pension is concerned, the stance of the respondent – Corporation is clear that due to non-proving the legal marriage by the petitioner with the deceased employee, the same cannot be granted.

5.2. The petitioner appears to have first approached this Court challenging such decision by way of Special Civil Application No.16014 o