Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over marital validity and fraud without prior civil court decree; second wife entitled to pension under rules.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

I) Quash the PPO 111864555F vide which the pension claim of deceased Naib Chand was illegally granted. to respondent No.4 who is the second wife of the deceased employee Naib Chand, as the same is patently illegal and contrary to the facts and law

II) Direct the respondents to recover the amount of pension which has illegally been withdrawn by the private respondent and pay it to the applicant.

III) Direct the official respondents to issue fresh PPO in favour of the applicant from the date of death of husband of the applicant.

IV) Grant any other relief or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, to which the applicant is held entitled to.

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicant, Smt. Pritma Devi, is the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Naib Chand, who was employed as a Livestock Supervisor in the Poultry Project, Belicharana, Jammu. The deceased employee retired from service and unfortunately expired on 09.09.2021.

b) From the lawful wedlock between the applicant and the deceased employee, two sons and two daughters were born. During the subsistence of this valid and subsisting marriage, Late Shri Naib Chand contracted a second marriage with respondent No. 4, Smt. Nirmala Devi, without dissolution of the first marriage. The applicant asserts that the said second marriage was void ab initio, being in violation of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well as the applicable Civil Service and Pension Rules.

c) It is pleaded that two sons, namely Inderjeet Parihar and Mithun Parihar, were born out of the said second marriage. While the applicant does not dispute the legitimacy of the children for limited statutory benefits, she asserts that the private respondent, being a second wife, has no legal entitlement to family pension under the governing pension rules.

d) The applicant asserts that her status as the first wife stands reflected in several official and public documents. Even the ration card records the name of respondent No. 4 after the applicant, clearly indicating her position as the second wife. Likewise, the death certificate issued by the competent authority also reflects this factual position.

e) It is specifically alleged that after the death of Late Shri Naib Chand, respondent No. 4, in connivance with her sons and certain officials of the department, indulged in manipulation, overwriting, and fabrication of material pension documents, including Form-3 (Details of Family) and Form-7 (Assessment of Pension and Gratuity). According to the applicant, her name and date of birth were deliberately overwritten using whitener and replaced with the name and particulars of respondent No. 4.

f) The applicant further alleges that even the joint photographs submitted for pension processing were tampered with, wherein the photograph of respondent No. 4 was digitally superimposed to falsely project her as the sole widow of the deceased employee.

g) On the basis of the aforesaid manipulated and forged documents, the official respondents issued PPO No. 111864555F in favour of respondent No. 4, sanctioning family pension to her, despite being fully aware that she was the second wife and not legally entitled under the rules.

h) Aggrieved by the said illegal action, the appli