THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.20181 of 2014
ORDER:
1 Assailing the Proceedings No.AP/SRO/SID/Pen/PPO No.14310/2014/53 dated 29.04.2014 of the 5th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and further seeking a direction to the respondents to arrange the pension payable under the Employees Family Pension Scheme and Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme from the date of death of her husband i.e. 29.03.2012 along with arrears and interest @ 12% p.a the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2 The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is the wife of one G.Komaraiah with whom her marriage was performed in 1975. Her husband joined the services of the 1st and 2nd respondent Corporation as driver in 1980, on regular basis. Her husband retired from service on 30.06.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. On 09.03.2012 the husband of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner, two daughters and one son, as his legal heirs. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner was member of Employees Family Pension Scheme as introduced by the 5th respondent as well as member of 3rd respondent Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme Organisation. Hence the petitioner made a representation, requesting the official 2 respondents to arrange family pension payable to her under the above said schemes. But the official respondents, particularly, the 5th respondent submits that there is a rival claim from one Bharathi (Laxmi), the 6th respondent herein. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 6th respondent herein was concubine of her late husband, as such the 6th respondent is not entitled to any of the benefits mentioned above. Hence the present writ petition. 3 The Law Officer of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter affidavit, inter alia, admitting the employment and retirement of the husband of the petitioner. He submitted that the Depot Manager, Siddipet had forwarded the claim form of the retired employee for sanction of Monthly Cash Benefit (MCB) duly attesting the passport size photographs of the employee and his wife named as Smt. G.Laxmi. Accordingly, the SRBS officer has sanctioned the MCB amount @ Rs.200/- p.m. and credited the same to the retired employee's account till 01.07.2012. He further submitted that the Depot Manager, vide his letter dated 17.10.2013 forwarded the spouse payment claim in Form - 5. On scrutiny, it is observed that the photograph on the spouse claim is not identical to that of spare spouse ID card. On 30.12.2013 a letter was addressed to the petitioner advising her to submit (a) Bank account pass book, (b) Latest two passport size photographs of the claimant with the attestation of the nit 3 Officer, (c) Original Spouse ID Card (issued by SRBS at the time of retirement and (d) Nomination form or legal heir certificate, since those documents are mandatory to ascertain the genuineness of the claimant and to sanction the MCB. But as the petitioner failed to respond, the case was kept pending. He further submitted that the 5th respondent authority had received a similar claim from the 6th respondent and the Provident Authorities conducted an enquiry and rightly advised both the petitioner and respondent No.6 to submit succession certificate obtained from the competent civil Court to ascertain the rightful beneficiary of the pension. It is further submitted that late Komaraiah submitted photographs on Medical Identity Card in Annexure B and entered the name of spouse as G.Laxmi aged 49 years. Similarly, the same information was entered in Annexure- B which was an application form submitted by Employees opting for medical facilities. However, when it came to the nomination and declaration form which is undated under the Employees Provident Funds and Employee Pension Scheme, Komaraiah nominated his wife named 'G.Bharathi'. In another Nomination and Declaration Form under the Employees Provident Funds and Employees Family Pension Scheme before the APSRTC Employees Provident Fund Trust which was dated 31.08.1996, he nominated Smt. G.Laxmi as his wife. Similarly, Komaraiah 4 also entered the name of his wife as G.Laxmi as the Nomination Form filed before the APSRTC Staff Benevolent cum Thrift Fund, Hyderabad.
4 On the other hand the 6th respondent filed counter affidavit contending that she is the wife of G.Komaraiah and that after the retirement of her husband all the retiral benefits were paid to her being the nominee to said Komaraiah. Komaraiah died on 09.03.2012 leaving behind her and her two children by name G.Venkatesh and G.Jyothi. In her counter affidavit, the 6th respondent further submitted that in the writ petition filed by the Corporation being W.P.No.2261 of 2009 against an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal wherein Komaraiah was directed to be reinstated into service. That I.D was filed in connection with some irregularities alleged to have been committed by Komaraiah. After the death of Komaraiah, she had filed WPMP (SR) No.101787 of 2012 for bringing her and her children as the legal representatives of Komariah.
5 The writ petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating the contentions as were made in the writ affidavit. Along with the reply affidavit, to prove her contention that she is the legally wedded wife of late Komaraiah, she filed Family Identity Card issued by Depot Manager, Charminar, House Hold Card showing the family members details with group photo, death certificate of 5 Komaraiah issued to the petitioner, Joint photo of the petitioner with her husband, and pension payment order of Komaraiah showing G.Laxhmi (petitioner) as wife. The writ petitioner further submitted in her reply affidavit that the 6th respondent is claiming as if she is Gurrala Laxmi by impersonating her (writ petitioner). The writ petitioner further submitted that even if the 6th respondent is considered to be the 2nd wife of late Komaraiah, she cannot claim pension as long as she is surviving. As such the action of the 5th respondent in arranging the family pension under EPF scheme to the 6th respondent is contrary to the scheme of Employees Family Pension Scheme.
6 As seen from the proceedings of the record, on 09.03.2017 this Court directed the learned standing counsel representing the EPF organization to produce the original records relating to the proceedings No.AP/SRO/SID/Pen/PPO No.14310/2014/53 dated 29.04.2014 of the 5th respondent. Accordingly on 16.03.2017 the record of Provident Fund Office was produced wherein it was observed that different photograph was affixed in one document and in all other documents, the claim is made on behalf of G.Laxmi.
7 It is noticeable from the record that though claiming to be the wife of late Komaraiah, the 6th respondent has not even 6 produced any material to prove her entitlement except filing an affidavit.
8 Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the writ petitioner strongly contends that the case of the petitioner should be considered on merits as well as on facts and further submits that the writ petitioner is suffering not only due to the sad demise of her husband but also with this vexatious litigation and draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the 6th respondent had attempted to draw the pensionary benefits of the late husband of the writ petitioner without there being any legitimate relationship between her and late Komaraiah. Relying upon the counter filed by the 6th respondent he submits that her attempt itself amounts to impersonation and vehemently opposes the claim of the 6th respondent and prays the Court that on this point alone the Court should consider the case of the writ petitioner.
9 On the other hand, Smt.K.Udayasri, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, submits that the 6th is the legally wedded wife of late Komaraiah and had begotten one male and one female child through him and had been staying with him till his death. He further submits that even the records prove so through the nomination made by late Komaraiah before the Provident Fund Authorities and further contends that attempt to withdraw the 7 pensionary benefits of late Komaraiah is per se not illegal and more so the misrepresentation of the fact does not write off her claim.
10 The learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that in the absence of any succession certificate / legal heir certificate as mandated in the appropriate regulation of the Corporation, the hands of the Corporation are tied to disburse the amount in favour of either of the parties i.e. writ petitioner and the 6th respondent and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11 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 6th respondent insofar as their relationship with late Komaraiah is concerned since there are some discrepancies and differences in the nominations made by late Komaraiah. Inasmuch as there is claim and counter claim, this Court is of the view that the Provident authorities have rightly directed the petitioner and the 6th respondent to get succession certificate from the competent civil Court. 12 On this point, I am fortified by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in J.M.Prasad (Since deceased through Heirs 8 & 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."
13 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 6th respondent on their succession to the retiral benefits and other entitlements of late Komaraiah in accordance with the regulations of the Corporation and disburse the same to the person who has the rightful succession. No order as to costs. 14 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: -10-2022 Kvsn
1 Spl.Civil Application Nos.7265 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.5022 of 2008, dated 24.12.2013