Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Gau) 634

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ
Purnima Malakar @ Purnima Mali @ Purnima Paul @ Purnima Laxmi Paul W/o. Lt. Sanjit Malakar @ Sanjit Mali – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 5189 of 2017
Decided on : 08-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR.A K PURKAYASTHA
For the Respondent: SC, NF RLY

Point of Law: As per Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 a Hindu Marriage is considered to have been performed only upon completion of Saptapadi.

Headnote:
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 125 - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Railway Service Rules - Railway Authorities - Release of death-cum-retirement benefits - Pensionary benefits - Petitioner claim to Railway Authorities for release of death-cum-retirement benefits and other family pension dues payable to her – Railway authorities have accepted fact that special marriage certificate implies that marriage between respondent No 11 was legally registered and marriage will therefore have to be accepted - Para 37.
Finding of the Court: Court find no infirmity in conclusions arrived at by railway authorities in recording a finding that petitioner is legally wedded wife and is entitled the pensionary benefits of order passed by Railway Authorities pursuant to enquiry initiated by Railways cannot be declared to be incorrect - CAT, Guwahati did not correctly appreciate evidences which were adduced before Court in maintenance case filed by petitioner and had erroneously arrived at its conclusion by referring to only a portion of Judgment rendered by Court and consequently interfering with order issued by Railways and further directing Railways to release pensionary benefits to respondent No. 11 - Court is of considered view that findings arrived at by CAT are not based on a correct appreciation of evidences adduced before Court of SDJM, and has wrongly interfered with findings of Railway Authorities - Impugned order is hereby reversed and set aside - Order issued by railways is sustained - Authorities are directed to take necessary steps for release of pensionary benefits to petitioner.
Result: Petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5189/2017 is the opposite party No. 11 before the CAT, Guwahati in O.A. No. 040/00329/2015 and petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3400/2017 are the Railway Authorities who were arrayed as Petitioners No. 1 to 10 in O.A. No. 040/00329/2015. Since both these writ petitions are directed against the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the CAT, Guwahati in O.A. No. 040/00329/2015, the matters are heard and taken up for disposal together. The respondent in the writ petition filed the Original Application before the CAT, Guwahati claiming to be the widow of one late Sanjit Malakar who was working as SFW/2 N.F. Railway, Lumding and was a resident of Relief Yard Colony, Lumding, District: Hojai, Assam challenging the orders passed by the respondent-Railways dated 11.09.2015. By the said order, the Railway authorities disposed of the application received from the writ petitioner and the respondent, both claiming to be legally wedded wife of the deceased Railway employee late Sanjit Malakar holding that the writ petitioner-Purnima Malakar was the ‘legal wife’ of late Sanjit Malakar and that she was eligible for payment of funeral assistance and family pension, GIS, leave salary and DCRG as well as compassionate ground appointment as per Pension Manual Rules. The Railway authorities further held that the status of Sippo Malakar namely the respondent No. 11 (Applicant before the CAT, Guwahati) was as the second wife of the deceased. Since the said deceased, Railway employee late Sanjit Malakar, did not take any prior permission for second marriage as per the Rules, the second marriage with Sippo Malakar was void and as a consequence, she was not entitled for settlement of dues of late Sanjit Malakar. It was further held that Miss Champa Malakar who claims to be the daughter borne out of the wedlock of late Sanjit Malakar and Sippo Malakar is entitled to her share of settlement dues of pension on production of guardianship certificate from the Hon’ble Court of Law.

2. The CAT, Guwahati, vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 came to a finding that the Railway Authorities committed an error in declaring Purnima Malakar, namely the writ petitioner, to be the first wife of late Sanjit Malakar. The CAT, Guwahati further held that the children borne out of the wedlock, even if they are illegitimate, will have their share of the dues payable to the dependents of the deceased under the relevant rules till they are major and in case of daughters till their marriage. The Railway Authorities were directed to make payment to the applicant before the CAT namely Sippo Malakar of all the dues payable as the dependent of the deceased employee late Sanjit Malakar within a period of three months. It was further directed that in the event of any delay beyond as directed, the Railway Authorities would be bound to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay. Being aggrieved the opposite party before the CAT, Guwahati namely Purnima Malakar has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the CAT, Guwahati. The impugned order dated 21.02.2017 has been assailed in the present writ petition on the following grounds:

A. For that the L’d. Tribunal below having failed to appreciate the relevant records on the basis of which the Rly. Department arrived at the impugned decisions and consequent order can be said to inconformity with the relevant provision of Section 18 Special Marriage Act, 1954 so as to conclusively declared the Respondent No. 11 to be the lawful and valid wife of deceased husband of the present petitioner Sanjit Malakar w.e.f. 27/11/1997 and the impugned finding on account of being vitiated by vice of perversity or erroneous conception perse rendered the impugned order of the Respondent Rly Department to be without any authority in law and non appreciate of the aforesaid legal aspect of the matter, also rendered the impugned Judgment/Order to be unascertainable in law and