Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
Smt. Hiron Kalita W/o Late Parbananda Kalita – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sabita Kalita W/o Late Parbananda Kalita – Respondent
W.A. No. 284 of 2021
Decided On : 17-02-2022
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 31(1) – Criminal Procedure code,1973 – Section 125 - Hindu Marriage Act – Section 5(1) – Pension – Family pension - Appellant claimed to be first legally wedded wife of Late one - Deceased employee, at relevant point in time, was employed as a Driver in erstwhile "Assam State Electricity Board" (ASEB) now known as "Assam Power Distribution Company Limited- Late one retired from service - He received his pension - Subsequently he expired - After the expiry of Late one, appellant and respondent approached APDCL Authorities, each staking their claims for family pension as legally wedded wife of Late one - APDCL by communication informed both appellant as well as respondent to appear before Authorities and submit documents in support of their claims for receiving family pension as wife of Late one.
Finding of the Court: Court have given court consious thoughts to submissions made and upon pleadings available on record – Court have also carefully perused Judgment impugned by learned Single Judge in present proceeding - As discussed, specific averments were made by respondents/APDCL in their affidavit filed that impugned order was issued relying only on Marriage Certificate/ Deed of Marriage furnished by appellant - Said Deed of Marriage is not a Marriage Certificate issued by prescribed statutory authorities who are empowered to issue such Marriage Certificates - Said Deed of Marriage on a plain reading does not confer status of marriage on either party - Accordingly, in absence of any other contemporaneous evidence relied upon by the APDCL authorities, order sanctioning pensionary benefits/family pension in favour of appellant relying solely on Deed of Marriage is without any legal basis - APDCL authorities have not even referred to the relevant provisions of the Regulations/Rules under which such provision is available - In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid - Under the circumstances, court are not persuaded to interfere with impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).
Result: Writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 533/2018 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal was allowed and the impugned Orders dated 14.09.2017 and 16.12.2017 passed by the respondents/Authorities, whereby the appellant was held to be entitled to receive family pension of Late Parbananda Kalita, were set aside and quashed. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant claimed to be the first legally wedded wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. Deceased employee, at the relevant point in time, was employed as a Driver in the erstwhile “Assam State Electricity Board” (ASEB) now known as “Assam Power Distribution Company Limited” (hereinafter referred as “APDCL”). Late Parbananda Kalita retired from service on 31.05.2012. He received his pension on 03.05.2013. Subsequently, however, he expired on 02.07.2016. After the expiry of Late Kalita, the appellant namely, Smti Hiron Kalita and the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in the writ petition) namely, Smt. Sabita Kalita approached the APDCL Authorities, each staking their claims for family pension as the legally wedded wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. The APDCL by communication dated 18.01.2017 and 20.03.2017 informed both the appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 to appear before the Authorities and submit documents in support of their claims for receiving the family pension as the wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. It may be stated herein that during the entire service tenure Late Parbananda Kalita did not nominate either the appellant or the respondent No. 1 as a nominee to receive the family pension and other service benefits in the event of his death. However, pursuant to his retirement, the appellant nominated the appellant as the person entitled to receive family pension in the event of his death. The APDCL Authorities by order dated 03.05.2013, while sanctioning the pensionary benefits to Late Parbananda Kalita on his superannuation on 31.05.2012 mentioned the name of the appellant as the person entitled to receive the pensionary benefit upon the death of Late Parbananda Kalita.
3. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) in support of her contention that she is the first wife of Late Parbananda Kalita, relied upon the Death Certificate issued on 11.07.2016 by the Competent Authority, wherein she was shown as the wife of the deceased Late Parbananda Kalita, who expired on 02.07.2016. She has also referred to the deposition of Late Parbananda Kalita in M.R. Case No. 08/1997, which case was filed by the respondent No. 1/petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from Late Parbananda Kalita. The said case was filed as some differences arose between the respondent No. 1 and the deceased employee after their marriage and pursuant to which they had been living separately. However, they were not divorced. The fact that she is the legal wife of Late Parbananada Kalita is evident from the deposition of the deceased himself before the Court. The deceased on oath had deposed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathsala at Barpeta in the said M.R. Case No. 08/1997 that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was his first wife.
4. That apart, on the basis of the depositions made therein that the respondent No. 1/petitioner was the first wife of Late Parbananda Kalita, by Judgment dated 26.05.1998 passed in M.R. Case No. 811/1997 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bajali, Pathsala directed that a maintenance amount of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only per month and Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per month for their daughter, Smti Dipanita Kalita be paid until further orders. Family identity card enclosed to the writ petition is also relied upon by the petitioner to show that the cardholder’s name was reflected as Late Parbananda Kalita and his family compris
Point of Law : In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
A second wife cannot claim family pension benefits unless she can prove her legal marriage to the deceased employee, as the definition of 'widow' under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, requires legal r....
A putative second wife, whose marriage to the deceased is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Rules.
Pension benefits cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction in the presence of competing marriage claims; a definitive legal spouse must be established in civil court settings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
