Bombay High Court
Smt. Asha Prakash Parkhe vs Union Of India Through The Secretary And ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:31102-DB
4220.18-wp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4220 OF 2018
Smt. Asha Prakash Parkhe ..... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ..... Respondents
Mr. J. M. Tanpure with Mr. Atul P. Vanarase for the petitioner.
Mr. R. P. Ojha a/w. Mr. Rakesh Dubey for the respondents.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE : AUGUST 2, 2024
ORAL ORDER (PER: CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties
and perused the records available before us on this petition.
2. Proceedings of this petition have been instituted challenging
the order, dated 5th January 2016 passed by the Mumbai Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
the Tribunal), whereby Original Application No.33 of 2014 filed
by the petitioner was dismissed. Under challenge in this petition
is also an order, dated 23rd December 2016 passed by the Tribunal
rejecting the Review Petition No.9/2016, whereby the review of
the judgment, dated 5th January 2016 was sought by the
Basavraj Page|1
4220.18-wp
petitioner. It is relevant to mention at this juncture itself that by
dismissing the Original Application and the Review Petition as
aforesaid filed by the petitioner, the Tribunal has not acceded to
the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was
employed with respondent No.2. He died while in service on 30th
December 1984. After the death of the husband of the petitioner,
she started getting family pension, however, the said family
pension was stopped w.e.f. 2nd May 1987 for the reason that the
petitioner had got remarried.
4. On stoppage of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 2nd
May 1987, her two unmarried daughters received family pension
in succession till 2nd October 2000. The family pension to the
unmarried daughters of the petitioner was, however, stopped
when they got married. The petitioner, thereafter, approached
the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.33 of 2014 with a
prayer for continuation of the family pension w.e.f. 3rd October
2000.
5. In her claim put-forth before the Tribunal, the petitioner took
a plea that she did not remarry and as such stoppage of her
Basavraj Page|2
4220.18-wp
pension from 2nd May 1987 was incorrect. It was also averred by
the petitioner that false records were created at the instance of
her Late husband's sister alleging that the petitioner got married
to one Mr.Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi who, in fact, was a colleague
and friend of her Late husband with whom she never married. On
the said basis the petitioner claimed that since she never
remarried and as such under the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules 1972 she is entitled to receive the family pension.
6. The claim put-forth by the petitioner, however, was
contested by the respondents by stating that under the 1972
Rules a widow is entitled to receive family pension till she
remarries and since in this case, the petitioner had re-married on
2nd May 1987 as such, with effect from the said date her family
pension has rightly been stopped.
7. The Tribunal considered the rival claims of the parties and
came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to receive
family pension on the ground of remarriage on 2nd May 1987. The
Tribunal relied on an order dated 20th May 2011 passed by the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Marriage Petition No.488 of
2009, wherein the prayer for declaration sought by the petitioner
Basavraj Page|3
4220.18-wp
that her alleged marriage with Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi was a
nullity, was not accepted.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact
since at the time of alleged remarriage of the petitioner i.e. on 2nd
May 1987, Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi was already having a living
spouse as such even if it is presumed that the marriage took place
on 2nd May 1987, such marriage under law is void and accordingly,
on the ground of such void marriage, family pension to the
petitioner could not have been stopped.
9. On behalf of the respondents, however, it has been
submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Pune, in Marriage Petition No.488 of 2009 and
also taking into consideration that after remarriage of the
petitioner on 2nd May 1987, her two daughters received family
pension in succession till 2nd October 2000, claim of the petitioner
has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal.
10. Having considered the submissions made by learned
Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the claim put-
forth by the petitioner is not tenable. It is not in dispute that on
the death of her husband she started receiving family pension
Basavraj Page|4
4220.18-wp
which was paid to her till 2nd May 1987 and it was stopped with
effect from the date of her remarriage with Jaswantlal Chotalal
Doshi. It is also not in dispute that after her remarriage on 2nd
May 1987, family pension has been paid to her two unmarried
daughters in succession till they got married and accordingly her
daughters in succession were paid family pension till 2nd October
2000.
11. It is noteworthy that admittedly from 2nd May 1987 till 2nd
October 2000 i.e. for a period of 13 years, the petitioner's two
daughters were paid family pension in succession, however, no
objection was ever raised by the petitioner in that respect. It is
only when her daughters stopped getting family pension on their
marriage w.e.f. 2nd October 2000 that the petitioner has raised
her claim by filing Original Application before the Tribunal.
12. The petitioner had filed Marriage Petition No.488 of 2009
which has been decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune
by means of a judgment, dated 20th May 2011. The petition was
filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the marriage with
Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi allegedly took place on 2nd May 1987 is
a nullity. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, however, while
Basavraj Page|5
4220.18-wp
dismissing the said petition, has also returned a finding that the
petitioner was trying to seek a declaration in collusion with
Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi who was impleaded as the sole
respondent in the Marriage Petition No.488 of 2009. Further
finding recorded by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in the
said order is that the petitioner was attempting to seek a
declaration in collusion with Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi to use such
declaration against the Department and accordingly, such an
effort cannot be approved of.
13. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in his order, dated
20th May 2011 has also recorded a finding that the petitioner was
trying to mislead the Court and accordingly, dismissed the
petition.
14. Once the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, vide his
judgment, dated 20th May 2011 has recorded a finding that the
petitioner was seeking a declaration of the marriage being void in
collusion with Jaswantlal Chotalal Doshi with a view to use the
same against the Department, in our opinion, any claim for family
pension to the petitioner is not acceptable. It is worth noticing
that the petitioner did not challenge the order, dated 20th May
Basavraj Page|6
4220.18-wp
2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in
Marriage Petition No.488 of 2009, whereby the prayer seeking a
declaration of the marriage being void was declined by the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune.
15. We have already noticed certain facts which are undisputed,
according to which the petitioner was paid family pension with
effect from the date of death of her husband till 2nd May 1987 and
when her family pension was stopped on account of her
remarriage and thereafter from 2nd May 1987 till 2nd October
2000, her two daughters were paid family pension in succession
and family pension to the daughters was stopped only when they
got married.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not
find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders, dated
5th January 2016 and 23rd December 2016 passed by the Tribunal.
17. The writ petition clearly lacks merit, which is hereby
dismissed.
18. There will be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj Page|7
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2024.08.06
14:08:51
+0530
