Delhi High Court
Om Bati vs Union Of India & Ors. on 6 September, 2017
13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1596/2017
Date of decision:6th September, 2017
OM BATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Randhir Singh Kalkal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC along
with Mr.Swaran Singh Chib, AC-
CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Oral)
The petitioner, Om Bati, claims to be legally wedded wife of
Constable Inderjit Singh. She has filed the present writ petition for
release of family pension to her.
2. Constable Inderjit Singh is missing since 23.06.2011 and FIR
No.180/2012, P.S. Nagar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan, under Section
365 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered on 10.05.2012.
WP(C) 1596/2017 Page 1
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per
the documents/form filled up by Constable Inderjit Singh on
28.10.2010, he was unmarried. Constable Inderjit Singh had declared
and nominated his mother Atra Devi as his next kin and the person
entitled to family pension. Constable Inderjit Singh had given the
details of his father, mother and brother. Details of the petitioner as his
wife were not indicated or stated in these documents dated 28.10.2010.
The petitioner, as alleged, had got married to Constable Inderjit Singh
on 09.05.2009. Date of birth of Constable Inderjit Singh as per records
is 14.05.1991, whereas the petitioner is presently 30 years of age as per
affidavit and therefore her year of birth would be 1987.
4. Constable Inderjit Singh, it is urged by the petitioner, had not
given particulars of the petitioner or marriage at the time of joining on
28.10.2010 as he was about 18 years of age at that time.
5. The respondents have stated that in order to consider the
petitioner's case for grant of family pension, they require a Succession
Certificate as per Rules.
6. The petitioner had applied for Succession Certificate but the
same was not granted vide order dated 28.03.2014 as Constable
WP(C) 1596/2017 Page 2
Inderjit Singh is missing from 23.06.2011 and since 7 years had not
lapsed to invoke the presumption under Section 108 of Evidence Act.
The petitioner can therefore, apply for Succession Certificate after 7
years with effect from 23.06.2011.
7. On being asked whether Atra Devi being mother can apply
for the family pension in terms of Office Memorandum dated
02.07.2010, it is submitted by the respondents that the mother has not
applied for family pension and in case she applies, the matter would be
examined. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that there is
a stipulation that family pension would be payable after 10 years of
qualifying service.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in aforesaid
circumstances, has stated that Atra Devi would apply for family
pension.
9. In case any such application is made, the same can be
considered by the respondents in accordance with the law, but without
insisting on Atra Devi obtaining Succession Certificate.
WP(C) 1596/2017 Page 3
10. We also clarify that it is open to the petitioner to apply for
Succession Certificate in accordance with the law and in case
Succession Certificate is granted to her, she can approach the
authority/respondents for grant of family pension. If any such
application is made, the same would be considered in accordance with
the law. In case such request is rejected by the respondents, the
petitioner would be at liberty to question the order before appropriate
Court/Forum.
11. We would also clarify that this order does not decide whether
or not family pension under the Rules would be payable to Atra Devi
or the petitioner, or both for want of qualifying service etc.
12. Recording the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 06, 2017/vp
WP(C) 1596/2017 Page 4
