IMPORTANT POINT
A legally wedded spouse post-divorce is entitled to family pension, and payments cannot be stopped without valid legal grounds.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition, petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to make regular payment of family pension to the petitioner and also to pay the arrears since November, 2013 with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Facts of the case necessary for adjudication of present controversy are that husband of petitioner late Ram Singh Negi was serving in OPTO Electronics Factory, Raipur, District Dehradun who retired on superannuation on 30.04.2003. After superannuation, husband of petitioner provided joint photograph and other details to respondent no. 3 for pension which was duly attested and accepted by the Department. Unfortunately, petitioner’s husband passed away on 23.01.2011, and after his death, petitioner applied for grant of family pension which was duly sanctioned and granted to her. Suddenly, in the month of November, 2013, pension was stopped by Punjab National Bank, Branch Adhoiwala, District Dehradun distributing branch stating that in the ‘Pension Payment Order’ (PPO) of late Ram Singh Negi, Ex Junior Works Manager, OPTO Electronics Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, name of his wife has been mentioned as ‘Sona Devi’ and not that of petitioner i.e. ‘Kaushalya Negi’. Inspection of the record revealed that in documents, instead of name of petitioner, name of ‘Sona Devi’ was transcribed.

4. The petitioner submitted a representation on 20.03.2014 supported by an affidavit for correcting the name of petitioner in the pension records and other relevant documents. The respondent no. 3-General Manager asked the petitioner to publish a public notice to change/ amend her name in the Gazette of India and intimate the Department for necessary action vide letter dated 26.10.2024. Letter dated 26.10.2024 was followed by another letter dated 06.02.2015 wherefrom it transpired that one ‘Sona Devi, R/o Village Todi, Patti Sarjula, Post Bhagirathipuram, District Tehri Garhwal’ also alleged her to be the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi, who also claimed family pension. This is how the dispute arose. Subsequently, on an enquiry having been conducted by the respondents, under the hands of respondent no. 2, vide Annexure No. 6, the pension, which was sanctioned in favour of petitioner, has been stopped with immediate effect, and it is pointed out that the documents submitted by ‘Ms. Sona Devi, R/o Village Todi, Patti Sarjula, Post Bhagirathipuram, District Tehri Garhwal’ are under enquiry by the civil authority.

5. After enquiry, it was found that Smt. Sona Devi is the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi while petitioner ‘Smt. Kaushalya Negi’ is the second wife to whom late Ram Singh Negi had married. The enquiry report is also on record annexed as Annexure No. 5 along with the counter affidavit which also reflects and concludes that Smt. Sona Devi is the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi while petitioner is the second wife and in the service records, there is nomination of ‘Sona Devi’ and there is no change of nomination by late Ram Singh Negi. The enquiry further directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of enquiry, as from the record, it is reflected that no further action was taken by respondents regarding cancellation of family pension sanctioned in favour of petitioner. It is feeling aggrieved by aforesaid stoppage of pension by respondents, petitioner is before this Court.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it is stated that since Smt. Sona Devi was the first wife of late Ram Singh Negi, therefore, the family pension has rightly been stopped; it was further held out that the family pension was wrongly sanctioned in favour of petitioner who got the same sanctioned by writing name ‘alias Sona Devi’ in the application form submitted for grant of family pension.

7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for petitioner that although, it is true that the first w