Laxmi Nag vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 5519 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                    NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WA No. 466 of 2022
Laxmi Nag W/o Shri Devsharan Nag Aged About 44 Years D/o Late
Sadanand Tande, R/o E-3, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil
Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur (C.G.)
                                                             ---- Appellant
                                 Versus
1.    Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Communication
      And Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications,
      Snchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110001
2.    The Controller of Communication Accounts Chhattisgarh Circle, 3rd
      Floor, Sanchar Bhawan, G.E. Raod, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)
3.    The Accountant General (Pension) Office of The Controller of
      Communication Accounts, Chhattsgarh Circle, 3rd Floor, Sanchar
      Bhawan, G.E. Road, Raipur 492001
4.    The In-Charge Officer Office of The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
      (Bsnl), G.E. Road, Near Shastri Chauk Raipur (C.G.)
5.    Chief Post Master General Chhattisgarh Circle, CPMG Office M.G.
      Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)
6.    The Director (Postal Services) Office of The Chief Post Master
      General, M.G. Road, Raipur 492001 (C.G.)
7.    The Superintendent of Post Office Chief Post Office Raipur, District
      Raipur (C.G.)
8.    The Superintendent of Post Office Chief Post Office Mahasamund,
      District Mahasamund (C.G.)
9.    The In-Charge Officer Office of The Post Master General, Post
      Office Branch Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.)
10.   Meena Kumari Tande W/o Late Sadanad Tande Aged About 41
      Years D/o Babu Lal, R/o Bagbahara, Tahsil-Bagbahara, Tahsil
      Bagbahara, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund (C.G.)
                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate

For Respondents No.1 to 9 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

05.09.2022

Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General,

appearing for respondents No.1 to 9.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 18.07.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.3111 of 2022.

The order reads as follows :

"1. The present writ petition has been filed alleging

inaction on the part of the respondents on the

complaint made by the petitioner in respect of the

grant of pension to the respondent No.10 on the

death of late Sadanand Tande, the father of the

petitioner.

2. Considering the age of the petitioner and the

Pension Rules apparently the petitioner would not be

entitled for receipt of pension at this juncture. The

cause title of respondent No.10 would show that she

has been shown as the wife of late employee

Sadanand Tande.

3. Under the given factual backdrop, this court is of

the firm view that the instant writ petition in the given

factual backdrop would not be sustainable.

Moreover, the dispute raised by the petitioner are all

disputed questions of fact which cannot be looked

into in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

4. Accordingly, reserving the right of the

petitioner to avail such other remedies available

to her under law, as also on the administrative side,

the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of as

not maintainable."

3. The writ petition was filed by the appellant, essentially, seeking for

an enquiry in respect of the complaint lodged by the appellant as well as

her sister Varsha and also seeking a direction to stop the pension granted

to respondent No. 10.

4. The appellant's father, namely, Sadanand Tande retired on

30.04.2011 as a Clerk under respondents No.1 to 4 and he was getting

his pension from respondent No.7. The appellant's mother, namely, Smt.

Brindavati Tande died in the year 2012 after suffering from severe health

problems. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.10 was

engaged by the father of the appellant to take care of the mother of the

appellant and after death of her mother, respondent No.10 continued to

remain there with appellant's father, who died on 18.12.2020. After the

death of father of the appellant, pension was made available to

respondent No.10.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant along with her sister, namely,

Varsha had lodged a complaint before respondent No.3. In response

thereto, a letter was addressed to them requiring them to submit copy of

the Court order passed in that regard.

6. It is alleged that pension is obtained by respondent No. 10 on the

basis of fabricated documents and though not clearly stated, it is

insinuated that the marriage certificate of the respondent No. 10 with the

father of the appellate is also fabricated. It is further alleged that the

marriage of respondent No.10 with Bhasuram Duriya, solemnized in the

year 1995, has not been dissolved, and therefore, claiming pension as

the wife of Sadanand Tande is not permissible in law.

7. In the background of the above facts, the observation of the learned

Single Judge that the appellant has raised disputed question of facts,

cannot be faulted with.

8. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is

dismissed. No cost.

                        Sd/-                                  Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                  (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
                    Chief Justice                           Judge
Anu