Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Bidya Hela vs The Union Of India & Ors on 16 August, 2022
19
16.08.2022
Ct. No.23
pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 12190 of 2022
Smt. Bidya Hela
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Indradeep Pal
Mr. M.F. Rahaman
Ms. Sougata Pal (Das)
... For the petitioner
Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty
... For Union of India
Ms. Sujata Mukherjee
... For KoPT
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
The petitioner claims that her husband, Sonalal @
Sonalal Hela, was an employee of Kolkata Port Trust (in
short "KoPT") now known as Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port,
Kolkata, who took voluntary retirement on 1st October,
1992. The petitioner's husband, after voluntary retirement,
was receiving pension. The petitioner's husband died on
27th July, 2006. The petitioner has applied for family
pension but the same has not been granted by KoPT.
Ventilating grievances against such action, the instant writ
petition has been filed on 24th June, 2022 i.e., after expiry
of about 16 years.
The delay in approaching the Court is a factor in
view of the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in
2
2008 (8) SCC 648 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh)
which has been subsequently followed in 2016 (13) SCC
797 (Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India).
The petitioner says that so far as granting current
family pension in favour of the petitioner is concerned, no
third party interest will be effected and, as such, the
petitioner is entitled to claim the same even at a belated
stage. With regard to the arrears, the petitioner admits that
she, at the highest, is entitled to arrears for the period
three years immediately preceding the date of filing of the
writ petition, i.e., 24th June, 2022.
On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is submitted
that there is a police verification report which shows that
the petitioner's husband married twice. The petitioner is
the second wife. As to when the second marriage was
contracted i.e., during the subsistence of the first marriage
or after the death of the first wife is not known. In the event
the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence
of the first marriage, then the second wife, in view of the
ratio laid down in the judgment reported in (2000) 2 SCC
431 (Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.), is not
entitled to family pension as the marriage itself is a void
one. Only in the event the second marriage was contracted
after the death of the first wife, the petitioner's claim for
family pension can be maintained.
On behalf of KoPT, it is submitted that there are
rival claims. One Bina Devi @ Sukhi Hela has made an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with
the Port authorities to provide particulars as to the status
of family pension and other details in respect of Sonalal @
Sonalal Hela, the deceased employee.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct
the respondent no.1 and the respondents no.2 and 3 to file
separate reports in form of an affidavit providing the details
as to the rival claim and other incidents which, according
to them, disentitle the petitioner from claiming family
pension.
Let such reports be filed by 2nd September, 2022,
with copies to the petitioner.
Let this matter appear in the list on 13th
September, 2022.
The petitioner shall be entitled to take an exception
to the report or the reports that may be filed.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
