Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Gita Mondal vs The Kolkata Port Trust & Ors on 22 December, 2021
14.
22-12-2021
debajyoti IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
(Appellate Side)
WPA 19510 of 2021
Smt. Gita Mondal
Vs.
The Kolkata Port Trust & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharyya,
Ms. Anita Shaw
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Kallol Basu,
Ms. Sujata Mukherjee
... For the Kolkata Port
Authority.
Affidavit-of-Service filed in Court be
taken on record.
In the instant writ petition, an order
dated 13th December, 2019 passed in WPA 534
of 2019 (Smt. Gita Mondal Vs. The Kolkata Port
Trust & Ors.) has been annexed. It is clear
from the said order that the petitioner has been
held to he second wife of Sudhir Mondal, the
deceased employee. It has also been held in
that order that the petitioner in the said writ
petition, who is also the petitioner in the
present writ petition, cannot claim herself to be
the legally married wife of the deceased
employee. It has been further observed in the
said order that the respondent authorities shall
be at liberty to take steps for disbursal of
terminal benefits of the employees in favour of
the legal heirs and representatives of the
employee upon proper verification. The legal
heirs and/or representatives, as per the
declared form submitted by the employee, apart
from the petitioner are Saptarshi Mondal,
Sanjit Kr. Mondal, Samit Kr. Mondal, Sutapa
Mondal, Subhendu Mondal and Bharati
Mondal. This declaration was given on 17th
March, 1983 and is also annexed to the writ
petition.
The petitioner claims that Saptarshi,
Sanjit, Samit, Sutapa and Subhendu are the
children of the petitioner out of the wedlock
between herself and Sudhir Chandra Mondal,
the deceased employee. It further appears from
the declaration form that the children of the
petitioner, claimed to be born out of the
wedlock between the petitioner and the said
Sudhir Chandra Mondal, are all adults at
present. These legal heirs have not come forth
to claim their benefit in terms of the order
dated 13th December, 2019. They are also not
party to the petition. The petitioner is
espousing the cause of these adult legal heirs.
That apart, the petitioner has not made any
statement in the writ petition that she has been
already declared to be the second wife of Sudhir
Chandra Mondal and is not entitled to any
benefit.
In fact, in a judgment reported in
(2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 431
(Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved
the view taken by the Patna High Court that
the second wife is not entitled to the Family
Pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity
and the Family Pension, but the children born
out of the second marriage, are entitled to all
such benefits till they attain majority.
Assuming without admitting that the
children of the petitioner were all minors at the
time of death of Sudhir and were entitled to the
benefits, then also the petitioner cannot make a
claim on their behalf since they have all
attained majority.
Considering this matter in the light
of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Rameshwari Devi (supra), I find that the writ
petition is not maintainable at the instance of
the second wife being the petitioner for the
reliefs claimed therein. The writ petition is,
thus, dismissed, without, however, any order
as to costs.
Affidavits not having been called for,
the allegations in the writ petition shall be
deemed not to have been admitted.
All parties shall act on the server
copies of this order duly downloaded from the
official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of
this order, if applied for, be supplied to the
parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )
