Back
2020 Supreme(Manipur) 37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
Kangnu - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 727 of 2018
Decided On : 26-02-2020
Mr B. P. Sahu, Sr. Advocate, for the Appellant, Mr. S. Samarjeet, CGC, BR. Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents
A court decree declaring a deceased as unmarried is legally binding, affecting claims for family pension despite conflicting assertions of marital status by another party.
Headnote:(A) Pension Act - Pension Payment Order dated 10.11.1998 - Determination of nominees - Natural mother sought inclusion as nominee under pension scheme for deceased military personnel; courts previously declared deceased unmarried which directly impacts entitlements to family pension. (Paras 1, 7, 15, 18, 22)
(B) Claim of Family Pension - Decree from Family Court stating deceased died unmarried is binding, despite alternate claims by another party asserting marital relationship - Legal recognition of the nominee is paramount. (Paras 19, 21)
Facts of the case:
The mother of the deceased, who served in Assam Regiment and was a pensioner, petitioned for recognition as the nominee in payment records after her son's death and subsequent claims arose by another party asserting marital rights. (Paras 1-6)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the Family Court's decree that the deceased was unmarried, thereby validating the petitioner's claim to the family pension and mandating corrections in official records. (Paras 20-22)
Issues: The primary questions relate to the validity of the nomination under the pension scheme, family relationships affecting claims, and adherence to prior court decrees regarding beneficiaries. (Paras 12, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity to honor previous judicial findings, asserting that legal documents pertaining to entitlement must adhere to established declarations of status concerning marital and familial relationships. (Paras 19-21)
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents ordered to amend records and grant family pension to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
[1] The mother of the deceased M.Suanliankap, who was working as Sepoy in Assam Regiment, has come forward with this writ petition calling upon the respondents to include in her name as nominee in the Payment Pension Order dated 10.11.1998 and also seeks direction on the respondents 1 to 5 to pay the arrear pension amount already paid to respondent No.6.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that her son was serving as Sepoy in the Assam Regiment and he had joined a Scheme known as Extended Army Group Insurance for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on payment of one time non-refundable premium of Rs.3,500/-. In the said Scheme, the petitioner was shown as nominee. According to the petitioner, her son was given retirement from service and was allowed to get a monthly pension under Pension Payment Order dated 10.11.1998 and in the column for nominee was kept blank. Her son died on 21.9.2012 due to illness. After the death of her son, the petitioner submitted an application to the Principal, Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Allahabad seeking family pension to her as a successor and heir of the deceased.
[3] While the application of the petitioner was under process, respondent No.6 submitted an application to the Records office, Records, Assam Regiment claiming to be the wife of the deceased Suanliankap. The senior Record officer kept the application of the petitioner pending and no further information on the progress of her application was given to her by the said authority. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a Suit in Mat.(Declaratory) Suit No.34 of 2016 before the learned Family Court, Churachandpur, Manipur against respondent No.6. Despite service of summons, respondent No.6 did not turn up and by the judgment dated 21.2.2017, the learned Family Court has given verdict that Suanliankap died on 21.9.2012 unmarried and was a bachelor. Pursuant to the decree granted in the said suit, the petitioner sent notice to the official respondents for taking necessary action for payment of family pension to her. Thereafter, payment of family pension to the petitioner.
[4] In the mean time, respondent No.6 filed W.P.(C) No.48 of 2017 before the Gauhati High Court and by the judgment dated 15.11.2017, the writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.6 to approach the appropriate Court in Manipur if she is aggrieved with the decree passed in Mat.(Declaratory) Suit No.34 of 2016 within a period of one month from the date of the order in the writ petition dated 15.11.2017. Till such time respondent No.6 approaches the appropriate Court and till further orders are passed by the appropriate Court, the family pension shall be continued to be paid by the State respondents to her. Stating that the official respondents are still giving pension to respondent No.6 and the same needs to be stopped, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
[5] Resisting the writ petition, the first respondent filed affidavit-in- opposition stating that Suanliankap was granted disability pension at the rate of 30% for five years with effect from 4.10.1997 to 29.8.2002 and thereafter, for life vide Pension Payment Order dated 25.7.2003. The petitioner approached the first respondent through her Advocate claiming family pension. In the mean time, respondent No.6 claimed to be wife of the deceased also requested the first respondent for grant of family pension vide application dated 11.2.2014 through office of District Sainik Welfare and Resettlement, Aizawl. Since the documents submitted by respondent No.6 were genuine, family pension was sanctioned to respondent No.6. It is stated that vide letter dated 24.2.2014, the petitioner was informed that further course of action regarding grant of family pension in her favour cannot be processed till factual position of the case has been established. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the suit in Mat. (Declaratory) No.34 of 2016 and in the suit, it was ordered that Suanliankap died as unmarried
