Punjab-Haryana High Court
Uma Devi vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 27 January, 2023
CWP-28479-2018 -1-
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-28479-2018
Date of Decision: 27.01.2023
Uma Devi ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Dilpreet Singh Gandhi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction especially in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents
to release the retirement benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case
where one Phool Chand son of Chokelal Kashyap retired as Supervisor from
Ranjit Sagar Dam Workshop at Shahpur Kandi, Pathankot and he was
earlier married with one Santosh Kashyap but the aforesaid Santosh
Kashyap had died on 08.05.1993, thereafter, the petitioner-Uma Devi
solemnized marriage with the aforesaid Phool Chand in the year 1994 and in
this way, the petitioner became the legally wedded wife of the aforesaid
Phool Chand. He further submitted that thereafter a matrimonial dispute
arose between the petitioner and the aforesaid Phool Chand and in this
1 of 5
regard, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance in which a dispute arose as to
whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the aforesaid Phool
Chand or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Ration
Card (Annexure P-3) in this regard and has also submitted that vide
Annexure P-4 when the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was decided by the learned Principal Magistrate, Family Court,
Jhansi on 01.10.2015, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion and
it was so observed and held that the petitioner, namely, Smt. Uma Devi is
the legally wedded wife of Phool Chand and her son, namely, Happy is the
legitimate child/issue of Phool Chand. Thereafter, from the salary of Phool
Chand, the maintenance amount was also deducted by way of the aforesaid
order for some time. Phool Chand retired on 31.08.2016 and he received all
the pensionary benefits which accrued to him regarding which there is no
dispute. However, since the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of
the aforesaid Phool Chand was entitled for family pension, she represented
to the State Government for release of the family pension and also issued a
legal notice which was replied by the State vide Annexure P-9 in which it
was stated that the Government is helpless in granting family pension to the
petitioner because there is no information to the Department regarding the
dispute between Phool Chand and the petitioner-Uma Devi or any order of
the Court and also on the ground that as per the pension papers submitted by
the aforesaid Phool Chand, he has stated that his legal nominee should be
his son, namely, Nitin Kumar Kashyap.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
2 of 5
although no order has been passed by any authority till date but a perusal of
the aforesaid reply to the legal notice would show that there was no ground
available with the Department to have not granted the benefit of family
pension to the petitioner on the ground that there was no information with
regard to the aforesaid judgment which was granted in favour of the
petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. So far as the other ground stated
in the reply to legal notice that the aforesaid Phool Chand has given the
name of his son as his legal heir, it is also not sustainable because the wife
is entitled for grant of family pension and since there was a matrimonial
dispute between the petitioner and the aforesaid Phool Chand, he
deliberately did not enter the name of the petitioner in that document which
is at Annexure R-1 attached with the reply filed by the State, and therefore,
reply filed by the Department to the legal notice was not proper and in
accordance with law. He also submitted that the family pension is a vested
right and such a right cannot be taken away on the aforesaid two grounds.
He further submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied in case at this stage,
the competent authority is directed to pass a well-reasoned speaking order
on the claim of the petitioner by considering the rules and instructions
which are applicable to the petitioner and also taking into account the
aforesaid two documents i.e. order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by the
learned Family Court (Annexure P-4) and Ration Card (Annexure P-3)
which have been attached along with the present petition.
On the other hand, Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab has
stated that proper reasoning has been given by the Department while
replying to the legal notice. She has however stated that she has no
3 of 5
objection in case the competent authority passes a detailed speaking order
after considering the rules and procedure apart from any document which is
to be supplied by the petitioner in accordance with law.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is that she is a legally wedded
wife of the aforesaid Phool Chand but the Department has not granted her
family pension since she was not able to satisfy the Government that she
was the legally wedded wife of Phool Chand. The orders pertaining to
Section 125 Cr.P.C. have been appended with the present petition and as per
the learned counsel for the petitioner, even maintenance amount was also
deducted from the salary of the aforesaid Phool Chand and there had been a
recording of finding of facts by the learned Family Court that the petitioner
is the legally wedded wife of Phool Chand. Apart from the above, Ration
Card (Annexure P-3) has also been attached wherein the name of the
petitioner is also figuring. This Court is of the view that since as of date no
conscious decision has been taken by the Government with regard to the
entitlement of the petitioner for family pension, appropriate directions are
required to be issued in this regard.
In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the
view that the present writ petition can be disposed of with the following
directions:-
1. The petitioner shall supply all the requisite documents in
support of her claim to respondent No.5 within a period of
three weeks from today.
2. On the receipt of the aforesaid documents, the respondent
4 of 5
No.5 shall issue notice to all the stakeholders including the
private respondents and fix a date for hearing of not only the
petitioner but any other stakeholder.
3. Thereafter, respondent No.5 shall pass a well-reasoned
speaking order after taking into consideration all the facts
and circumstances, documents supplied and the law
applicable in this regard within a period of four weeks
thereafter.
4. In case, respondent No.5 comes to the conclusion that the
petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension then,
necessary payment shall be made to the petitioner along with
interest @6% within a period of next four weeks.
5. In case, respondent No.5 comes to the conclusion that the
petitioner is not entitled for the grant of family pension, then
the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid
order before any appropriate forum in accordance with law.
6. For the sake of clarity, in case the competent authority to
take a decision is other than respondent No.5, then the
aforesaid directions shall be deemed to be made to that
competent authority.
The present petition stands disposed of.
27.01.2023 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
