Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Geeta Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Appellate Side)
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPCT 314 of 2016
with
C.A.N. 4420 of 2017
Date of decision:- 25.03.2021
Geeta Ghosh
...Petitioner
-versus-
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Present:- Mr. Ayan Banerjee,
Ms. Debasree Dhamali and
Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Advocates
...for the petitioner
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated
September 23, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Kolkata (for short, 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 350/01353/2016 (Geeta
Ghosh vs. Eastern Railway) (for short, the Original Application), where
under, the Original Application was disposed of without interfering with
the decision of the respondents.
2. The petitioner is the wife of Late. Ajit Kumar Ghosh, who was
employed as a Chief Controller/COM, Eastern Railway. The deceased was
WPCT 314 of 2016
then permanently absorbed in F.C.I. He died on August 30, 2005 (as per
the death certificate, Annexure P-4) and till then he had received his
requisite pension.
3. After the demise of the employee, the petitioner, claiming to be his
wife, submitted a representation dated October 28, 2005 praying for grant
of the family pension to her. The Railways by its letter dated November
11, 2005 rejected the said claim of the petitioner. The plea for rejection
was that, the deceased employee had not mentioned nor submitted any
declaration in favour of the petitioner being his wife during his lifetime and
did not mention her name with joint photograph while applying for
restoration of 1/3rd of his pension on completion of 15 years from the date
of receipt of lump sum amount in lieu of full commutation.
4. Subsequently, also representations were made by the petitioner before
the Railways and the same were rejected on the same line. The petitioner
then in 2016 filed the Original Application challenging the said decision of
rejection by the Railways in which the impugned order was passed.
5. Despite notice the respondents were not represented.
6. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner
submitted that she is now about 85 years old. She being the widow of the
deceased employee has a legitimate claim to receive the family pension on
account of her deceased husband and the Railways rejected her claim
wholly in an unlawful and illegal manner. In support of the contention that
the petitioner is the widow of Ajit Kumar Ghosh, since deceased, several
documents have been relied upon which are annexed annexed with the writ
petition, such as Railway Medical Attendance Identity Card, the Election
WPCT 314 of 2016
Commission of India Identity Card of the petitioner and the passport of
Shankar Ghosh, son of the petitioner bearing the names of his parents.
7. Mr. Banerjee, then submitted that, the doors of the jurisdictional Civil
Court is always open for obtaining the appropriate declaration on the
disputes involved in this case. However, the Railways are also duty bound
to conduct a detailed enquiry and came to a conclusion thereupon in
respect of the issues involved herein. If after detailed enquiry the
conclusion is arrived at in favour of the petitioner then her claim can be
acceded to by the Railways. In support of such contention Mr. Banerjee,
had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter
of: Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported at (2000) 2 SCC
431.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal
of the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that considering
the age of the petitioner, and also in view of the law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi's case (supra), justice would be
sub-served if the Railways through its competent official/authority causes a
detailed enquiry on the issues involved in the matter and come to its
reasoned conclusion and thereupon takes a decision on the claim of the
writ petitioner.
9. In Rameshwari Devi's case (supra), the Hon'ble the Supreme Court
was pleased to observe as under:-
"15. Rameshwari Devi has raised two principal objections:
(1) marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal has not
been proved, meaning thereby that there is no witness to the
actual performance of the marriage in accordance with the
religious ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage,
WPCT 314 of 2016
and (2) without a civil court having pronounced upon the
marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal in
accordance with Hindu rights, it cannot be held that the
children of Yogmaya Devi through her marriage with Narain
Lal would be legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The first objection we have discussed above
and there is nothing said by Rameshwari Devi to rebut the
presumption in favour of the marriage duly performed
between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal. On the second
objection, it is correct that no civil court has pronounced if
there was a marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal
in accordance with Hindu rights. That would, however, not
debar the State Government from making an inquiry about
the existence of such a marriage and act on that in order to
grant pensionary and other benefits to the children of
Yogmaya Devi. On this aspect we have already adverted to
above. After the death of Narain Lal, inquiry was made by the
State Government as to which of the wives of Narain Lal was
his legal wife. This was on the basis of claims filed by
Rameshwari Devi. The inquiry was quite a detailed one and
there are in fact two witnesses, examined during the course of
inquiry, being (1) Sant Prasad Sharma, Teacher, DAV High
School, Danapur and (2) Shri Basukinath Sharma, Shahpur
Maner who testified to the marriage between Yogmaya Devi
and Narain lal having witnessed the same. The both Narain
Lal and Yogmaya Devi were living as husband and wife and
four sons were born to Yogmaya Devi from this wedlock has
also been testified during the course of inquiry by Chandra
Shekhar Singh, retired District Judge, Bhagalpur, Smt(Dr)
Arun Prasad, Sheohar, Smt S.N. Sinha, w/o Shri S.N. Sinha,
ADM and others. Other documentary evidence were also
collected which showed that Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal
were living as husband and wife. Further, the sons of the
WPCT 314 of 2016
marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal were shown
in the records as the sons of Narain Lal.(Emphasis laid)".
10. In view of our foregoing discussions the impugned order dated
September 23, 2016 passed by the Tribunal stands set aside. The
competent official/authority of the Railways being the respondents herein,
must conduct a fact finding detailed enquiry on the issues involved after
giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or through her
authorized representative upon a prior notice of hearing and to come to a
reasoned decision thereupon. The decision so taken be communicated to
the petitioner. It is made clear that in course of such hearing the petitioner
will be at liberty to produce whatever documents, she wishes to rely upon.
Entire exercise must be carried out by the competent authority within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
11. In the event the Railways come to a conclusion on the issue in favour
of the petitioner then the respondents must regularize and release the
family pension in favour of the petitioner positively within a further period
of four weeks from the date of the reasoned order.
12. The present writ petition stand disposed of accordingly.
13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
(Aniruddha Roy)
Judge
Kolkata
25.03.2021
................
P.A. (RM)
WPCT 314 of 2016
1. 127.4.2021 WPCT 314 of 2016
with
CAN 4420 of 2017
1 (Through Video Conference)
Geeta Ghosh
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Prosinjit Mukherjee (Through VC)
..for the Petitioner
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order
dated March 25, 2021.
Today, the case was listed before this Court under the
heading 'To Be Mentioned'.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that
there are typographical errors in the order as year of CAN 4420
has been typed as 2015 as against 2017. Further towards the
end of the order, the date of decision has been typed as
13.04.2021 instead of 25.03.2021.
From perusal of the order, the aforesaid typographical
errors are noticed in the order. The same are being corrected
under our initials. The corrected order may be uploaded on the
website along with the present order, which shall always form
part of the order passed on 25.03.2021.
(Rajesh Bindal, J.)
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)
