THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.30657 of 2021
ORDER:
1 Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in rejecting family pension to her by issuing Memo dated 23.10.2021, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2 Petitioner asserts that she is widow of late Syed Shamsuddin a retired Section Officer, Home Department. It is the case of the petitioner that Shamsuddin married her on 08.01.2017 stating that he had given divorce to his first wife i.e. fourth respondent herein on 21.04.2021. Her husband retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2004. Her husband died on 06.06.2020. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband submitted an application on 14.06.2018 to the first respondent along with descriptive rolls in triplicate and revised nomination forms for sanction of family pension in favour of the petitioner after his death and requested to forward the same to the Accountant General (A&E) Hyderabad by authorizing the petitioner being his legally wedded wife. The petitioner also submitted Life Time Arrears application on 13.07,2020 for grant of family pension. 3 The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent issued Memo No.A1/1806/APPO/NG/2020 dated 26.08.2020 stating that the name of the petitioner and the name mentioned in the descriptive rolls and in A.G pension authorization are different 2 and hence Time Arrears application was returned. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking to furnish a copy of the representation which was submitted by her husband in respect of change of nomination. Accordingly letter dated 16.10.2020 was issued to the petitioner by enclosing a copy of the application submitted by her husband. The petitioner resubmitted an application along with representation dated 28.10.2020 to the third respondent requesting to incorporate his name as nominee of late Shamsuddin, along with their marriage certificate and divorce certificate between Shamsuddin and the fourth respondent. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4 The third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the name of the fourth respondent was mentioned as wife of the deceased Shamsuddin as family pension beneficiary. The pension will be disbursed based on the authorization issued by the Principle Accountant General (A&E) Hyderabad. 5 The fourth respondent also filed counter affidavit stating that the alleged marriage certificate of the petitioner and deceased Shamsuddin is a fake document and they are created and concocted documents and that there was no divorce between the fourth respondent and the deceased Shamsuddin in reality. Taking advantage of the abnormality mind of the deceased Shamsuddin, the petitioner obtained his signatures and thereby grabbed some 3 gold ornaments. The petitioner also forcibly withdrew Rs.9.00 lakhs from the fixed deposit of her husband. Therefore, she prayed to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner as the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of late Shamsuddin and on the other hand she (fourth respondent) is the legally wedded wife of Shamsuddin.
6 As seen from the material filed along with the counter affidavit by the third respondent, it is seen that in the pension papers, the deceased Shamsuddin has mentioned the name of the fourth respondent as beneficiary for the family pension and nowhere the name of the petitioner was mentioned. May be the deceased might have filed revised pension papers on the dates as pleaded by the petitioner. But this Court cannot probe into the factual aspects and decide the truth or otherwise with regard to the said aspect in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere. 7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the status of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent insofar as their relationship with late Shamsuddin is concerned since there are some discrepancies and differences in the nominations made by late Shamsuddin.
48 On this point, I am fortified by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in J.M.Prasad (Since deceased through Heirs & L.Rs) Vs. State of Gujarat1, wherein in an identical situation, the Gujarat High Court held as follows:
"Considering the rival contention, in my opinion, this factual aspect cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction mainly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the authority has rightly called upon the petitioner and all concerned to produce succession certificate for getting benefits of pension, gratuity etc. of late Mr.J.M.Prasad. Further, the judgment of the Division of Bench, High Court of Gujarat is not applicable in the present case since here is the question about claim made by two women having legally wedded wife of late Mr.J.M.Prasad. Therefore, competent Civil Court would be the appropriate Court to decide the said aspect i.e. about status of each lady. Hence, the present petition is meritless and is required to be dismissed. Rule is discharged."
9 In the light of the principle enunciated in the case cited supra, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent on their succession to the retiral benefits and other entitlements of late Shamsuddin in accordance with the rules and regulations and disburse the same to the person who has the rightful succession. No order as to costs. 10 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed.
______________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 13-12-2022 Kvsn 1 Spl.Civil Application Nos.7265 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.5022 of 2008, dated 24.12.2013