Manju Singha Roy vs Union Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3862 Cal

30.06.2022           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sl. No.148           CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                   APPELLATE SIDE

                           WPA 20651 of 2018

                           Manju Singha Roy
                                  Vs.
                           Union of India & Ors.


                  Mr. Sourav Sen,
                  Ms. Sumitra Das
                                               ....for the petitioner.

                  Ms. Ashima Roy Chowdhury
                                             ....for Union of India.
                  Mr. Kallol Basu,
                  Ms. Sujata Mukherjee
                                                    ....for KoPT.
                  Ms. Riya Chatterjee
                               ...for the respondent nos.4, 5 & 6.

Let the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-

in-reply filed in Court today are taken on record.

The petitioner claims to be the second wife of a

retired employee of Kolkata Post Trust (in short

"KoPT") now know as Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port,

Kolkata, who has passed away on 8th October, 2017.

The petitioner says that her husband, Arun Kumar

Singha Roy was married to Mukul Singha Roy in the

year 1956. Out of the said marriage, one son and two

daughters were born. After the birth of the said

children, according to the petitioner, Mukul Singha

Roy left her husband Arun Kumar Singha Roy and

married another person. She never returned to Arun

Kumar Singha Roy subsequently. The petitioner

claims that Arun Kumar Singha Roy married her in

May, 1973. Subsequent to such marriage, Arun

Kumar Singha Roy had applied for inclusion of the

petitioner's name as a nominee to his provident fund

and gratuity. The petitioner says that after his

retirement, Arun Kumar Singha Roy was receiving

pension. After the death of the said Arun Kumar

Singha Roy, the petitioner is entitled to the family

pension. The petitioner's claim for such family

pension has been rejected by KoPT, which was

communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 8th

June, 2018. The petitioner has challenged this order

of rejection.

The second marriage, as claimed by the

petitioner, took place in 1973, that is, after the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said

Act) came into operation. Under the provisions of the

said Act, the second marriage during the subsistence

of the first is an invalid marriage. The petitioner has

not been able to demonstrate that the first marriage

stood dissolved prior to the second marriage. The

second wife, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the judgment reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431

(Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.), is not

entitled to the family pension.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do

not find any flaw in the decision communicated by

the employer, KoPT, vide letter dated 8th June, 2018.

The order of rejection, therefor, requires no

interference.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, dismissal of the writ petition will not

prevent the petitioner from approaching the

appropriate forum to establish her claim and

thereafter make a prayer to the employer for grant of

family pension. The employer, if so approached, shall

reconsider its decision in accordance with law.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance

of necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)