Delhi High Court
Aman Kumar Pandey vs General Manager Mahanagar ... on 27 January, 2017
$~5.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 1611/2016
Date of decision: 27th January, 2017
AMAN KUMAR PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate.
versus
GENERAL MANAGER MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM
LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. R. Sudhinder, Ms. Prerana Amitabh
& Mr. Dattatray Vyas, Advocates for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
Aman Kumar Pandey, in this writ petition, has challenged the order
dated 28th January, 2015 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in OA No. 2949/2014,
Sushila Devi versus General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited and Chairman and Managing Director, Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Limited. The petitioner was not a party to the said OA, which was
filed by his mother Sushila Devi. The grievance of the petitioner is that the
order dated 28th January, 2015 while deciding OA No. 2949/2014 filed by
Sushila Devi also decides the rights of the petitioner, who claims that he is
the son of late Ram Dulare Pandey. This order dated 28th January, 2015
holds that the petitioner cannot claim that he is one of legal representatives
/heirs of late Ram Dulare Pandey.
2. There is a dispute between Sushila Devi and Geeta Devi, as to who
was the legally wedded wife of late Ram Dulare Pandey. We are not
expressly and directly concerned with the said dispute in the present writ
W.P. (C) No. 1611/2016 Page 1 of 3
petition, as even if it is assumed that Sushila Devi was not the legally
wedded wife of late Ram Dulare Pandey, this would not deny the claim of
the petitioner-Aman Kumar Pandey that he is a legal heir of his father late
Ram Dulare Pandey. Law of inheritance treats all sons and daughters
alike, whether born from the first or the second marriage. Rules or office
orders to the contrary, may well require examination and can be made
subject matter of challenge.
3. Accordingly, we would accept the present writ petition to the extent
that the order dated 28th January, 2015 passed in OA No. 2949/2014,
Sushila Devi versus General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited and Another, would not be a ground to reject and negate the rights
of the petitioner, who claims that he is the son of late Ram Dulare Pandey
and, therefore, would be entitled to inheritance or family pension. This lis
and dispute must be adjudicated and decided, notwithstanding the decision
in Sushila Devi versus General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited and Another.
4. The second prayer in the writ petition made by the petitioner is for
quashing of the order dated 22nd September, 2015 passed by the General
Manager, Northern Region, Mahanagar Telehphone Nigam Limited. This
order was passed pursuant to the directions given in the Tribunal's order
dated 28th January, 2015 disposing of OA No. 2949/2014, Sushila Devi
versus General Managar, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and
Another. The petitioner, if aggrieved by the said order, would have to
initiate appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal, i.e., the court/forum of
the first instance. This was also observed by this Court in the order dated
28th March, 2016. However, notice was issued as some of the observations
in the order dated 28th January, 2015 passed in OA No. 2949/2014, Sushila
Devi versus General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
and Another, would have barred and prevented the petitioner from raising
W.P. (C) No. 1611/2016 Page 2 of 3
his claim as a legal heir/representative. We have already observed that the
findings of the Tribunal in the order dated 28th January, 2015 would not bar
or prevent the petitioner from raising his claim as the son of late Ram
Dulare Pandey. This being the position, now there is no impediment in the
petitioner approaching the Tribunal staking his claim and right. If
required, he may challenge validity of the Rule or office order.
5. We have permitted the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for
another reason. There is also a dispute regarding the date of birth of the
petitioner, who claims that he was born on 13th September, 1997, whereas
the respondents claim that the date of birth of the petitioner is 13 th
September, 1995. The order dated 22nd September, 2015 holds that the
date of birth of the petitioner is 13th September, 1995. This controversy
would also have to be examined and gone into, if raised by the petitioner
before the Tribunal.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the order dated 28 th
January, 2015 passed in OA No. 2949/2014, Sushila Devi versus General
Managar, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Another, would not
foreclose or prevent the petitioner from raising his claim as the son of late
Ram Dulare Pandey and accordingly his entitlement to the retirement and
claim for family pension. However, we clarify that we have not expressed
any opinion on merits and on any other aspect. The writ petition is
accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Copy of this order will be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties under signature of the Court Master.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JANUARY 27, 2017
VKR
