Telangana High Court
Sara Jabeen vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 13 December, 2022
Bench: E.V. Venugopal
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
WRIT PETITION No.30657 of 2021
ORDER:
1 Aggrieved by the action of the first respondent in rejecting
family pension to her by issuing Memo dated 23.10.2021, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2 Petitioner asserts that she is widow of late Syed Shamsuddin
a retired Section Officer, Home Department. It is the case of the
petitioner that Shamsuddin married her on 08.01.2017 stating
that he had given divorce to his first wife i.e. fourth respondent
herein on 21.04.2021. Her husband retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2004. Her husband
died on 06.06.2020. It is the further case of the petitioner that her
husband submitted an application on 14.06.2018 to the first
respondent along with descriptive rolls in triplicate and revised
nomination forms for sanction of family pension in favour of the
petitioner after his death and requested to forward the same to the
Accountant General (A&E) Hyderabad by authorizing the petitioner
being his legally wedded wife. The petitioner also submitted Life
Time Arrears application on 13.07,2020 for grant of family pension.
3 The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent
issued Memo No.A1/1806/APPO/NG/2020 dated 26.08.2020
stating that the name of the petitioner and the name mentioned in
the descriptive rolls and in A.G pension authorization are different
and hence Time Arrears application was returned. Thereafter the
petitioner submitted an application under RTI Act, 2005 seeking to
furnish a copy of the representation which was submitted by her
husband in respect of change of nomination. Accordingly letter
dated 16.10.2020 was issued to the petitioner by enclosing a copy
of the application submitted by her husband. The petitioner
resubmitted an application along with representation dated
28.10.2020 to the third respondent requesting to incorporate his
name as nominee of late Shamsuddin, along with their marriage
certificate and divorce certificate between Shamsuddin and the
fourth respondent. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner
filed the present writ petition.
4 The third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the
name of the fourth respondent was mentioned as wife of the
deceased Shamsuddin as family pension beneficiary. The pension
will be disbursed based on the authorization issued by the
Principle Accountant General (A&E) Hyderabad.
5 The fourth respondent also filed counter affidavit stating that
the alleged marriage certificate of the petitioner and deceased
Shamsuddin is a fake document and they are created and
concocted documents and that there was no divorce between the
fourth respondent and the deceased Shamsuddin in reality. Taking
advantage of the abnormality mind of the deceased Shamsuddin,
the petitioner obtained his signatures and thereby grabbed some
gold ornaments. The petitioner also forcibly withdrew Rs.9.00
lakhs from the fixed deposit of her husband. Therefore, she prayed
to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner as the petitioner
is not the legally wedded wife of late Shamsuddin and on the other
hand she (fourth respondent) is the legally wedded wife of
Shamsuddin.
6 As seen from the material filed along with the counter
affidavit by the third respondent, it is seen that in the pension
papers, the deceased Shamsuddin has mentioned the name of the
fourth respondent as beneficiary for the family pension and
nowhere the name of the petitioner was mentioned. May be the
deceased might have filed revised pension papers on the dates as
pleaded by the petitioner. But this Court cannot probe into the
factual aspects and decide the truth or otherwise with regard to the
said aspect in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere.
7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that this Court sitting under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the status of the
petitioner as well as the 4th respondent insofar as their relationship
with late Shamsuddin is concerned since there are some
discrepancies and differences in the nominations made by late
Shamsuddin.
8 On this point, I am fortified by the judgment of the High
Court of Gujarat in J.M.Prasad (Since deceased through Heirs &
L.Rs) Vs. State of Gujarat1, wherein in an identical situation, the
Gujarat High Court held as follows:
"Considering the rival contention, in my opinion, this factual aspect
cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction mainly under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, and therefore, the authority has rightly called
upon the petitioner and all concerned to produce succession certificate
for getting benefits of pension, gratuity etc. of late Mr.J.M.Prasad.
Further, the judgment of the Division of Bench, High Court of Gujarat
is not applicable in the present case since here is the question about
claim made by two women having legally wedded wife of late
Mr.J.M.Prasad. Therefore, competent Civil Court would be the
appropriate Court to decide the said aspect i.e. about status of each
lady. Hence, the present petition is meritless and is required to be
dismissed. Rule is discharged."
9 In the light of the principle enunciated in the case cited
supra, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner as
well as the 4th respondent on their succession to the retiral benefits
and other entitlements of late Shamsuddin in accordance with the
rules and regulations and disburse the same to the person who
has the rightful succession. No order as to costs.
10 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition
shall also stand closed.
______________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 13-12-2022
Kvsn
1 Spl.Civil Application Nos.7265 of 2004 and Special Civil Application No.5022 of
2008, dated 24.12.2013
