Smt. Sonia @ Sona vs Ministry Of Railways & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2135 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         WP (C) No. 291/2007

%                                  Judgment delivered on: 19.05.2009

Smt. Sonia @ Sona                                       ...... Petitioner
                               Through: Mr. Prashant Jain with Mr. Umesh
                                        Kumar, Advocate

                          versus

Ministry of Railways & Ors.                             ..... Respondent

                               Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh with
                                         Ms. Punam Singh, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1.       Whether the Reporters of local papers may                 Yes
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to Reporter or not?                        Yes

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported                    Yes
         in the Digest?

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)

*

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India the petitioner seeks directions to the respondent to release

family pension of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

Mr. Suresh Kumar was working in the Railways and as stated by

the petitioner she was married to him in the year 1981. Shri Suresh

Kumar turned blind during his service in the year 2001 while working

as Ticket Collector and he was accordingly retired on medical grounds

by respondent No. 1 on 11.01.2001. That at the time of submission of

his documents regarding final payment of retiral dues and pension, his

father Shri Durga Dutt Sharma and brother Rakesh Trikha had

mentioned him as bachelor in order to get all his retirement and other

benefits. Since Shri Suresh Kumar was blind, he was not able to read

and write papers and affixed his thumb impression on that. After

retirement Shri Suresh Kumar himself sent letter to the Circle Officer

(Settlement) regarding the appointment of the petitioner on

compassionate ground because he was retired by the respondent on

medical grounds and there was no other source of income for their

livelihood. Shri Suresh Kumar died on 6.8.2003 and thereafter the

petitioner applied for the family pension of her husband and also to

seek her appointment on compassionate grounds. Both the petitioner

and her husband lived together till his death. The petitioner while

applying for the pension submitted certain documents with the

respondents to show that the petitioner is the wife of Late Shri Suresh

Kumar. Respondent No. 3 vide its letter No. 720-E/3/32752/PA/P-13

dated 12.12.2005 informed the petitioner that late Shri Suresh Kumar,

Ex.-TCR/Delhi showed himself as unmarried in the statement of family

members and there is no document available in the office of the

respondent to show the petitioner as the wife of late Shri Suresh

Kumar.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is the legally wedded wife of late Suresh Kumar with whom she had

married in the year 1981. Counsel further submits that the petitioner

lived with her husband at the premises allotted by the respondents till

the date of his death i.e. 6.8.2003. Counsel further submits that

unfortunately her husband became blind in the year 2001 while

working on the post of ticket collector and later on he retired from his

service on medical grounds on 11.1.2001. Counsel further submits

that her late husband had submitted requisite documents to seek his

retiral benefits and pension etc. and in the said documents the father

of her husband and his brother Shri Rakesh wrongly disclosed his

status as that of bachelor. Counsel submits that since husband of the

petitioner was blind and, therefore, taking advantage of his blindness

his status was deliberately disclosed as bachelor in the said

documents with a sole motive to deprive the petitioner from enjoying

the benefit of pension and the money to be received by her towards

retiral benefits. Counsel further submits that after retirement of Shri

Suresh Kumar he himself had sent a letter to seek appointment of the

petitioner on compassionate grounds vide application dated 4.4.2002

submitted by him with the respondents. Necessary affidavits were

also annexed with the said application signed by the petitioner as well

as by her husband. The husband of the petitioner Shri Suresh Kumar

died on 6.8.2003 and thereafter the petitioner had applied to seek

family pension and also for her appointment on compassionate

grounds. Number of representations were made by the petitioner to

follow up the case for compassionate appointment and for release of

retiral benefits, but vide letter dated 12.12.2005 respondent No.3

informed the petitioner that her husband late Shri Suresh Kumar had

disclosed his status as that of unmarried person in the pension papers

and also the same status in the application for issuance of the medical

card. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the stand taken

by the respondent is absolutely illegal in the presence of various

documents supporting the fact that the petitioner was legally wedded

wife of late Shri Suresh Kumar and was residing with him till the date

of his death. Not only this, the petitioner is also in possession of

ration card where name of her husband is disclosed as Suresh Kumar

and even various travel passes were issued by the respondents in

favour of the petitioner during the life time of her husband. One of the

essential criteria for the issuance of the travel pass is that a

declaration has to be given by the employee that information provided

by him to obtain travel pass is correct. Contention of counsel for the

petitioner is that no employee would dare to give a wrong information

in the said declaration as wrong information can lead to disciplinary

action against such an employee for major penalty proceedings.

Counsel further submits that even the medical facilities were being

availed by the petitioner in her capacity as the legally wedded wife of

the said employee Shri Suresh Kumar and ignoring all these

documents the respondent till date has not taken any decision to

release family pension to the petitioner after the death of her

husband.

4. Refuting the said submissions of counsel for the petitioner,

counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is bound by

the declaration given by the deceased employee himself. Counsel

further submits that in the application submitted by the said employee

himself he has disclosed his status as that of an unmarried person in

the relevant format concerning the statement of family members.

Even in the application submitted by the said employee for the

issuance of medical card he had disclosed his status as that of a

bachelor and not of the married person. Counsel based on these facts

submits that once the said employee himself disclosed his status as

that of a bachelor so there is nothing wrong or illegal on the part of

the respondent to disbelieve the petitioner, who was never shown to

be his legally wedded wife in the pension paper submitted by the said

employee.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable

length and perused the record.

6. Indisputably, the said employee Suresh Kumar before his

retirement became blind in the year 2001. It is also not in dispute that

pension papers submitted by him were not filled by him in his own

hand writing as by that time he had already lost his eyes. It is clear

that somebody must have helped him in filling the necessary columns

in the said application form. In that process, the person filling the

form might have wrongly disclosed his status as that of bachelor. In

the face of the said pension papers and one or two applications

submitted by the employee to seek medical card, the genuineness and

authenticity of documents reliance on which was placed by the

petitioner cannot be washed off. Counsel for the petitioner has

produced original ration card and the original election card during the

course of the arguments. Photocopies of which were already

submitted by the petitioner to claim family pension of her husband.

Not only these documents, the petitioner had also availed free travel

passes in her capacity as that of the legally wedded wife of the said

employee and it is not in dispute that for availing such free travel the

employee himself has to fill a declaration form to affirm the

correctness of the particulars given therein. It is beyond one's

comprehension that if the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife

of the same employee, then, why the respondents were issuing free

travel passes in her favour and even had extended medical facilities to

her. It appears that the respondent has not given any weightage to all

these documents, authenticity of which cannot be doubted and which

pertain to the period before 2001, when the husband of the petitioner

lost his eye sight.

7. The documents like ration card and election ID cards are issued

by the Government departments and their genuineness can be

presumed under law. Also, it is a well settled proposition that a person

may lie but documents do not. In this regard this Court observed as

under in Jasbir Kaur & Ors. vs RAkesh Kumar & Ors. 138 (2007)

DLT 743 and the relevant para of the same is reproduced as under:-

"Person can tell a lie but documents cannot. When there is any documentary evidence, no amount of oral evidence to that effect can be considered."

8. Also, as per Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a man and

woman are living together for a long time then their marriage is

presumed by law. In the instant case there is not only presumption of

the petitioner being wife of Mr. Suresh Kumar, but there are

documents issued by Government which prove this fact.

9. In view of the above discussion, I feel that the respondents act of

not granting the family pension to the petitioner is arbitrary and

illegal and has caused undue harassment to the petitioner. The

respondents did not appreciate that already the petitioner has been

suffering due to death of her husband, and on top of that denial of the

respondent in granting her legal right to family pension has further

caused mental pain and agony to the petitioner.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and

respondent is directed to release the family pension to the petitioner

within two months from the date of this order.

May 19, 2009                                KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
rkr