Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Smt Munni Devi vs M/O Defence on 3 April, 2024
1 (OA No.290/00155/2016)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290/00155/2016
Pronounced on : 18.04.2024
(Reserved on : 03.04.2024)
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
1. Smt. Muni Devi W/o Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh, Age
48 years.
2. Kumari Manju Kanwar D/o Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh,
age 16 years.
3. Kumari Anita Kanwar D/o Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh,
age 14 years.
4. Punam Singh S/o Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh, age 11
years.
Applicants no.2 to 4 minor through their mother R/o Purana
Rasoda, Rai Ka Bagh, Jodhpur.
.......Applicants
By Advocate: Mr. D.K. Joshi.
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. The Senior Account Officer (Funds), Controller of Defence
Accounts, Meerut Cantt, Meerut. (Respondent no.2 deleted vide
order dated 24.03.2017)
2 (OA No.290/00155/2016)
3. The AEE (CIV), The Office of AGE B/R-1(A) Central, MES,
Shikargarh, Jodhpur.
4. Smt. Chand Kanwar W/o Annad Singh, R/o 5-B-51, Kudi
Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.S. Yadav for respondents no.1 to 3
Mr. Vikas Hedau for respondent no.4
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)
1. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent department for not granting family pension and other retiral benefits pertaining to late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh along with interest to the applicants and to restrain the respondents from granting any benefits in favour of private respondent no. 4, they have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The facts necessary to adjudicate the instant OA are as under :-
2.1 The husband of the applicant No. 1 & father of the applicant no. 2 to 4, late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh was working on the post of Mate, in the office of respondent No. 2 and while still in service, expired on 24.01.2015, due to serious illness at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, leaving behind a wife, the applicant No. 1 and three children (the 3 (OA No.290/00155/2016) applicant No. 2 to 4). A Service Certificate (Annexure A/1), a pay slip issued to the deceased (Annexure A/2) and his permanent pass/ ID (Annexure A/3), issued by the respondent department establishes that he was regular employee of the office of respondent no. 3. 2.2 As per the averment made by the applicants, earlier the deceased was married to private respondent no. 4, Smt. Chand Kanwar and she was made his nominee in his service records. Subsequently, she left him and married Anand Singh R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Under these circumstances 20 years ago, Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh made a NATA (marriage) with applicant no. 1 Smt. Muni Devi according to the custom of their caste. After such NATA (Marriage), applicant no. 1 Smt. Muni Devi has been living with Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh as a wife during his lifetime and fulfilled all her duties of the married life. As a result of the said marriage applicant no. 1 Smt. Muni Devi bore three children namely Manju Kanwar, Anita Kanwar & Punam Singh and they also lived with their father Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and mother Smt. Muni Devi. A copy of the Voter ID cards (Annexure A/5), Aadhar card of applicant no. 1 (Annexure A/6) and a copy of the joint bank account of the applicant no. 1 with her husband (Annexure A/7) 4 (OA No.290/00155/2016) are placed on record to establish that Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh was her husband.
2.3 It is further claimed by the applicants that during the lifetime of Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh, a letter was given by him to the respondent authorities for change of name of his nominee as applicant no. 1, Smt. Muni Devi in place of private respondent no. 4, Smt. Chand Kanwar, but no action was taken by the respondent department for the change of Nominee of Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh, till his death. 2.4 After the death of the applicant's husband/father, it is averred that the applicants approached the respondent authorities for the release of retiral benefits of Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and family pension to the applicant but no action was taken by the respondent authorities and as a result they are in acute economic crises and it is very difficult to sustain. Since the applicant's husband/father Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh was the only earning member of applicant's family and due to his sudden demise applicants are facing financial hardship as it is very difficult to sustain themselves. Inaction in releasing the retiral benefits and family pension by respondent department is illegal, baseless and against the facts of the matter and provision of the constitution of India. The applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of late Late Shri Indra 5 (OA No.290/00155/2016) Ram @ Inder Singh and applicant 2 to 4 are legally born children of Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and therefore they are legally entitled to get all the retiral benefits and family pension. Being aggrieved by inaction by the respondent department the applicants were left with no other option but to issue a legal notice dated 10.03.2015 (Annexure A/10) to them. This too did not result in any response from the respondent department, so they are compelled to approach this Tribunal.
3. In reply the respondents no. 1 to 3 have averred that Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh died while in service but he was neither husband nor father of Applicant No. 1 and Applicant 2 to 4 respectively, therefore they are not entitled for any retirement benefits or family pension. Moreover, private respondent 4 i.e. Smt. Chand Kanwar is legally married wife of Late Shri Indra Ram.
3.1 As per the respondents, marriage of private respondent 4 i.e. Smt. Chand Kanwar with Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh took place way back in year 1980. It is also submitted that at the time of marriage Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh was working as temporary employee at M.E.S and thereafter in September 1982 he became permanent employee as per the document filed as Annexure R-4/1 & R-4/2. When Late Shri 6 (OA No.290/00155/2016) Indra Ram @ Inder Singh became permanent employee, he made private respondent no.4 as his nominee in service records, which is revealed by document filed as Annexure R-4/3. It is true that husband of private respondent no.4, Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh died at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital during treatment, at the time of his last breath private respondent no.4 and her 3 children were at his bedside. Therefore, the submissions made by Applicant 1 to 4 are false, and so far as documents annexed by them are concerned Annexure A/1 to A/4 can be procured and they do not give any right in favour of Applicants no.1 to 4. 3.2 The respondents 1 & 2 further averred that the retiral benefits and other entitlements under the rules it is the dispute between the applicants and respondent no.4. For this purpose separate proceedings are provided under the law for declaration and such entitlement by way of getting the succession certificates issued. Neither this Tribunal nor the respondents are competent to decide the same. As per information and nomination application dated 01.10.1993 of the deceased employee, private respondent no.4 is the legally wedded wife and Mr. Kishan Ram is the legal son of deceased employee. Therefore, the applicants are not legal heir as per the official record available with the respondent department and thus not entitled to get the retiral benefits and family pension in their 7 (OA No.290/00155/2016) favour. Para 4 of CCS (Pension) Rules, postulates that the second marriage despite living first wife is misconduct if the same is solemnized without a systematic divorce by the competent court of law. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, second marriage is not permitted, while leaving first spouse until and unless the first marriage is terminated by way of divorce or judicial separation obtained from a competent court of law. In the instant case, no decree of divorce between the deceased employee and private respondent no.4 was made available by the deceased employee. Thus, the second marriage of deceased employee with applicant is nonest and the applicants are not entitled for any relief claimed in the OA, and therefore, the OA filed by the applicants may be dismissed.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of private respondent 4, it has been reiterated that Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh died while in service, but he was neither the husband of applicant no.1 nor father of applicants no.2 to 4 and they are not entitled for retirement benefits. Private respondent no.4 is legally married wife of Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and their marriage took place way back in year 1980. At the time of marriage, the deceased employee was working as temporary employee with MES and thereafter in September, 1982 he became 8 (OA No.290/00155/2016) permanent. After he became a permanent employee, he made private respondent no.4 as his nominee in his service records (Annexure R- 4/3). The submission that private respondent no.4 got married to Shri Anand Singh is false as she got married to Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh in the year 1980 and she gave birth to two sons and one daughter out of wedlock namely Kishan Singh @ Vijay Singh, Poonam Ram @ Karan Singh and Neetu was living with him till his death i.e. 24.01.2015. 4.1 In her reply the private respondent 4 has submitted a copy of letter dated 17.08.2015 of respondent department asking her to submit last 5 years CCO-09 in respect of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh for preparing case for final settlement of GPF Fund (Annexure R-4/28). In response to letter and affidavit dated 28.10.2015, respondent department released GPF amount of Rs.83,862/- on 17.11.2015 and Rs.84,389/- on 03.02.2016 to her but still other retiral benefits and family pension is yet to be released to her. This establishes that private respondent no.4 is the legal wife of the deceased employee and applicant no.1 is neither wife of Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh nor applicants no.2 to 4 are children of Late Shri Indra Ram. Hence, they are not entitled to get any retiral benefits and family pension of late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh. 9 (OA No.290/00155/2016)
5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicants, it has been stated that Smt. Munni Devi got married to Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh in the year 1996-97 under social custom. After the wedlock of the applicant with Indra Ram, three children were born to the applicant. The husband of the applicant Late Shri Indra Ram @ Inder Singh executed an agreement on 10.04.2009 (Annexure A/11) regarding his marital status. It is also submitted in the agreement that earlier he was married to private respondent 4, Smt. Chand Kanwar but she had left him, and Smt. Chand Kanwar and his other legal heir would not be entitled to get any penny from the property of the Indra Ram. Further, it is also submitted that Smt. Munni Devi and her 3 children are only entitled to get movable and immovable properties and service benefits of Late Indra Ram.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the reply of private respondent no.4 is totally false and fabricated because she had left Late Shri Indra Ram more than 22 years ago and thereafter, she was not in contact with him because the private respondent no.4 was living with her new husband. Late Shri Indra Ram @ Ram Singh died on 26.01.2015 in MGH, Jodhpur and the mortal remains of the deceased were handed over by the Hospital to the applicants since the counter 10 (OA No.290/00155/2016) signature on the hospital record is of applicant no.2 Kumari Manju (Annexure A/12) and the funeral was also carried out by the applicants. In an affidavit dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure A/13) submitted by Indra Ram @ Inder Singh to SBI Jodhpur for opening Joint Account he had mentioned his wife's name as Smt. Munni Devi in that bank account.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. As per reply filed by the private respondent 4, the question raised by the applicants cannot be considered by this Tribunal. As per nomination, only private respondent 4 is entitled for family pension and other retiral benefits. The applicants can pursue their claim before Civil Court only. Till that moment, any right if declared in their favour, the respondents are to obtain by the nomination submitted by Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh, the deceased employee. The subject matter of instant OA is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as it cannot decide whether the applicant no.1 is the 2nd wife of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and the applicant no.2 to 4 are their children. The applicants are required to be declared as wife, daughters and son respectively by the competent Civil Court and such adjudication can also not be made by the official respondents.
11 (OA No.290/00155/2016)
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant no.1 had married Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh through NATA (Marriage) according to the customs of the caste more than 20 years ago. Further, it is established fact that applicant no.1, Smt. Munni Devi was living with Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh till his death as his wife along with their children born out of their wedlock.
Further, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if the applicant no.1 fails to establish a valid marriage, then also the applicants no.2 to 4 being children of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh have a right to get their share in the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Leave Encashment.
10. On the contrary, learned counsels for the applicants have no right to seek any relief from this Tribunal. They are virtually seeking declaration from this Tribunal regarding their status as wife, daughters and son of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and the said issue cannot be decided by this Tribunal for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties and material available on record, it is clear that the applicants themselves are not denying the status of private respondent no.4, as wife of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh. There is also no dispute that in 12 (OA No.290/00155/2016) service records, the private respondent 4, has been shown as wife of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh. It is also not placed on record by the applicants that the relation of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and private respondent 4, was terminated on account of divorce.
12. In view of the above, claim of family pension and other retiral benefits by the applicants on the ground that applicant no.1 is legally wedded wife of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and applicants no.2 to 4 are their children is not bona-fide as per the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. No Hindu can re-marry in the life time of his wife until and unless previous marriage is dissolved. Second marriage having a spouse living is void ab-initio, therefore, the applicant no.1 cannot be termed as wife of the deceased employee Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh though they may have lived together as wife and husband.
Moreover, in the present case, the applicant no.1 herself does not make any statement to the effect that Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh married her after dissolution of his previous marriage.
In view of the matter, the applicant no.1 cannot be allowed to make unnecessary hurdle in finalizing the family pension in favour of private respondent 4, who is undoubtedly the legally wedded wife of the deceased Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh.
13 (OA No.290/00155/2016)
13. The applicants have claimed that private respondent 4, Smt. Chand Kanwar left the deceased employee Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh and married Anand Singh, R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur, but they have not placed any documents on record to establish their claim. Moreover, the private respondent 4 has placed on record a number of photographs and other documentary evidences to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh. The Annexure R-4/3 which is a GPF statement for the year 2005-06 of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh which is placed on record by his legally wedded wife private respondent no.4, Smt. Chand Kanwar wherein her name is mentioned as wife and this document is dated 27.06.2006. Therefore, the claim of the applicant no.1 that Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh was living with her for the last 20 years is seems to be not true.
14. So far as the claim of applicant No. 2 to 4 regarding DCRG is concerned, Rule 53 of Pension Rules provides that:-
"(1) A Government servant shall, on his initial confirmation in a service or post, make a nomination in Form 1 or 2, as may be, as appropriate in the circumstances of the case, conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the retirement gratuity/death gratuity payable under Rule 50. Provided that if at the time of making the nomination
(i) the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family;
or 14 (OA No.290/00155/2016)
(ii) the Government servant has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not."
As per sub rule (5) of Rule 53 of Pension Rules:
"A Government servant may, at any time, cancel a nomination by sending a notice in writing to the Head of Office. Provided that he shall, along with such notice, send a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule."
Definition of family has been provided under sub rule (6) of Rule 50 of Pension Rules, wherein, wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant, husband, including judicially separated husband in the case of a female Government servant, sons including stepsons and adopted sons, unmarried daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters, widowed daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters etc. have been included in the definition of family, but this definition does not include children who are not born out of valid wedlock.
Having regard to the definition of family, the applicant No. 1 has no right to get any share in the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of the deceased employee. The applicant No. 1 cannot be treated as wife, as defined under sub-rule 6 of Rule 50 of the Pension Rules. So far as claim of the applicant No. 2 to 4 are concerned, they have attained the age of majority. Otherwise also, deceased Late Indra Ram @ Inder 15 (OA No.290/00155/2016) Singh nominated 100% share in favour of private respondent 4, Smt. Chand Kanwar in his lifetime, as disclosed from letter dated 01.10.1993 (Annexure R/1). Therefore, the applicant No. 2 to 4 are not entitled to get any share in the DCRG of Late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh.
15. So far as other pensionary benefits are concerned, the applicants prima-facie failed to establish any right to get the same in the absence of proven valid marriage of late Indra Ram @ Inder Singh with private respondent 4. In my considered view, the respondents should proceed further to disburse family pension and other pensionary benefits to the entitled person as per service record of the deceased employee. This Tribunal has not passed any stay order against the disbursement of pensionary benefits to the private respondents whose name finds place in service records of the respondents as 'wife' of the deceased employee.
16. In the result, OA lacks merit, hence, dismissed with no orders as to costs. It is expected that respondents shall proceed further expeditiously in accordance with extant rules.
(AMIT SAHAI) MEMBER (A) sv