Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Farida Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2018

                                          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                1                                                             WP No.3006/17

                                                           WP No.3006/2017
                                                 (Smt. Fardia Bai Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
                                Indore, Dated : 6.8.2018
                                          Shri R.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
                                petitioner.

                                          Shri    Amit    Singh,     learned      counsel        for   the
                                respondent/State.

Heard finally with consent.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner along with the arrears and interest.

In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is wife of the deceased employee Dr. Abbas Ali. Further case of the petitioner is that Dr. Abbas Ali was got married to Sayra Bai and after her death he had got married to the petitioner on 18.1.1999 at Shajapur. Dr. Abbas Ali had died on 5.10.2010, therefore, the petitioner is claiming the family pension on the death of Dr. Abbas Ali.

The respondents have filed their reply taking the stand that petitioner is required to produce the marriage certificate in terms of the Circular dated 21.8.1995.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the wife of the deceased-employee is entitled for the family pension and that respondent No.3 is not disputing this fact.

As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no authentic document available on record showing that the petitioner is wife of the deceased employee, Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 13/08/2018 18:24:38 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP No.3006/17 therefore, the benefit of pension cannot be extended to the petitioner.

On the basis of submission of the petitioner this Court on 10.7.2018 had directed the respondents to produce the original record containing the letter dated 28.5.2010 in order to examine whether the Government servant after his retirement during his lifetime had informed about his second marriage or not. The original record has been produced which contains the communication dated 28.5.2010. Though the said communication dated 28.5.2010 states that a communication dated 12.7.1999 was sent to the Joint Director, Accounts & Pension for including the name of the petitioner for the purpose of family pension, but no such communication dated 12.7.1999 is on record. The original record does not contain any material showing that the deceased-employee during his lifetime had informed the department about his marriage with Smt. Farida Bai. The alleged document dated 12.7.1999 is also not on record. The petitioner is placing reliance upon the marriage certificate issued by Shia Dawoodi Bohra Jamaat (Shajapur) but the said certificate is dated 10.5.2011, whereas the death of the concerned employee had already taken place on 5.10.2010. The record further reflects that earlier also the petitioner had filed the writ petition before this court being WP No.3616/2012, which was disposed off with certain directions to the respondents vide order dated 14.5.2012 and then the petitioner had filed the Contempt Petition No.674/2013 which was disposed off by this court with permission to the petitioner to submit the marriage certificate vide order dated 31.10.2014 by observing as under:-

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP No.3006/17 "In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to submit the marriage certificate before the competent authority and the competent authority shall ensure that all legitimate claims of the petitioner are settled within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such marriage certificate."

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that no such marriage certificate issued by any competent authority has been placed on record. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Note-2 of sub-rule 14 of Rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, but the said rule only provides for filing of the application in the Form- 30 but it does not exclude the production of the authentic material in respect of the marriage. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the division bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Sita Bai Sinodia and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner reported in 2002(3) MPLJ 116 but that was a case where the two widows were making the claim and therefore, the Division Bench has held that in the case of Muslims, where taking of more than one wife is not prohibited, pension is payable to the widows in equal shares. The Division Bench has not held that without submitting any authentic document of marriage the pension can still be granted.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the passport and submitted that passport is the valid proof that petitioner is wife of the deceased employee but mere mention of the name as Abbas Ali as husband of the petitioner in the passport does not conclusively establish that the petitioner is wife of the deceased employee Dr. Abbas Ali.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 WP No.3006/17 Since in the present case there is no authentic document of marriage available on record, therefore, no error has been committed by the respondents in asking the petitioner to submit the authentic document.

In these circumstances I am of the opinion that no direction can be issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of family pension to the petitioner until and unless the petitioner produces any authentic document establishing that petitioner is the wife of the deceased-employee.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed off by giving liberty to the petitioner to file the authentic document issued by the competent authority or a declaratory decree from the civil court or the succession certificate showing that petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee. If such a document is filed by the petitioner, the respondents will duly consider the petitioner's case for grant of family pension expeditiously without any delay. Needless to say, if the petitioner succeeds in establishing the claim, then the competent authority will also duly consider the issue of grant of interest on the pension amount.

C.C. as per rules.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-