Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Ameena Bee vs M/O Railways on 7 March, 2023
OA/272/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/021/272/2021
Reserved on : 03.02.2023
Pronounced on : 07.03.2023
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Administrative Member
1. Ameena Bee, W/o. Late Babaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
R/o. H.No. 2-6-503/1, Jaipuri Colony,
Nagole, Hyderabad- 5000 068.
2. Mumataz Begum@ Munni Begum, W/o. Late Babaiah,
H.No. 2-6-503, Jaipuri Colony,
Nagole, Hyderabad- 500 068.
...Applicants.
(By Advocate: Mr. P Ramchander Rao)
Vs.
1. Union of India, South Central Railway,
Rep. by its General Manager,
3rd Floor, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad- 500 071.
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Secunderabad Division, S.C. Railway,
IV Floor, Sanchalan Bhavan,
Secunderabad- 500 025.
3. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Secunderabad Division, S.C. Railway,
Secunderabad- 500 025.
... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC).
---
Page 1 of 8
OA/272/2021
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. B Anand, Administrative Member) This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"The applicants jointly prays the Hon'ble Tribunal to set aside and quash the letter vide proceedings No.SCR/P-
SC/661(a)/ONR/Elec/2009 dt. 01.03.2021 by directing the respondents to share the Terminal benefits and family pension @ 50% each to the living wives of the deceased and consequently direct the respondents to grant Compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased Mahabub Subhan in Railways and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. I) The brief facts of the case are that Late P. Babaiah, Ex. Khalasi Helper, married Smt. Ameena Bee(1st Applicant) on 16.06.1979. They have a son, P. Mahbub Subahan and a daughter, Shamshad Begum. The 1st Applicant, due to her unexpected illness in 1997, permitted her husband, Late P. Babaiah, to marry Mumataz Begum(2nd Applicant), as her religious law, i.e. Muslim Personal Law, permits up to four marriages with the consent of other living wives. Accordingly, the 2nd Applicant was married to Late P. Babaiah on 01.04.1997, as per Muslim customs and Personal Law and, they have no children.
II) It is learnt from the records that the deceased employee was murdered on 09.04.2009 and the 2nd Applicant was accused of the same and charged. The Hon'ble IX Additional District and Sessions Judge(FTC), Ranga Reddy, District completed the trial proceedings and, vide Judgment dt. 25.08.2011, and honorably acquitted the 2nd Applicant from the charges.
Page 2 of 8
OA/272/2021 III) The applicants' counsel has submitted that the 1st Applicant's family particulars are available with the respondents in the family declaration Form and the respondents have also issued Privilege Passes and PTOs in the names of the 1st Applicant and her children. Moreover, there is a valid Marriage Certificate(NIKANAMA) issued by the President, Masjid Managing Committee, which was certified as genuine by the Jamia Masjid, Penukonda on 26.03.2020. Therefore, her marriage with Late P. Babaiah need not be proved in the Court of Law.
IV) The applicants' counsel further submitted that, with the consent of the 1st Applicant, Late P. Babaiah married the 2nd Applicant as per Muslim Personal Law and the marriage was solemnized at Jaipuri Colony Masjid, Nagole, Hyderabad. The Marriage Certificate(NIKANAMA) was issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board. It is submitted that, after the marriage, the 2nd Applicant's name was also included as 'Wife' in the family declaration form. The 2nd Applicant prays to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment either to the son of the 1st Applicant or to the 1st Applicant.
V) Further, it is submitted that the silence of the respondents on submission of applicants' names as 'wives' in the family declaration form by Late P. Babaiah, without any disciplinary action, can be inferred that the same was accepted by the respondents. After the death of their husband, the applicants Page 3 of 8 OA/272/2021 submitted a number of representations to the respondents for Terminal benefits and Pension. Thereafter, in response to DPO/SC Letter dt. 31.08.2020, a joint representation dt. 09.02.2021(A-5) was submitted by the applicants praying that they will share the terminal benefits and family pension. The Respondent No.2 issued Proceedings dt. 01.03.2021 denying grant of terminal benefits and pension @50% share to each applicant and further directed to submit 'declaratory decree issued by a competent court of law declaring the applicants as legally wedded wives of the deceased'.
VI) The applicants' counsel submitted that the respondents themselves mentioned in Para-b of the Impugned Order dt. 01.03.2021 stating that the deceased employee had mentioned Smt. Ameena Bee as his wife in the family declaration form in a particular year and mentioned Smt. Mumtaz Begum@ Munni Begum in another year. Further, Marriage Certificates(NIKANAMAS) dt. 16.06.1979 & 01.04.1997 issued by the Competent Authorities of Muslim Religion also exist. Therefore, the respondents, advising the applicants to bring 'declaratory decree issued by a competent court of law' is illegal and arbitrary. The applicants' counsel prayed to allow the OA. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the case of Durgi Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. in Civil Wit Petition No.1657 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2022.
3. I) The respondents have filed reply in the matter. It is submitted that Late P. Babaiah worked as Khalasi Helper in the respondents' organisation and, during April, 2013, the immediate Page 4 of 8 OA/272/2021 supervisor under whom the deceased employee was working, sent a Letter dt. 16.04.2013 to the Respondent No.2 stating that P. Babaiah was absent from duty from 05.04.2009. A representation dt. 18.12.2012 was received from one P. Babu Subhan, the alleged son, stating that P. Babaiah was murdered on 09.04.2009 by his alleged 2nd wife along with her friend. Subsequently, the 1st Applicant submitted representations dt. 30.08.2017 & 11.09.2017 to the Respondent No.2 & 1 respectively alleging that her husband was murdered by the 2nd Applicant. She has also submitted Death Certificate of her husband dt. 01.11.2019. In the meantime, the 2nd Applicant had also submitted her claim for payment of settlement dues.
II) The respondents state that the ex-employee, in the family declaration forms, mentioned the 1st Applicant as wife in the year 1995 whereas he mentioned the 2nd applicant as wife in the year 2007. Both the applicants have submitted copies of marriage certificates, family declaration forms showing their status as wife, in support of their claim. So, it is not clear as to who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and, the applicants were advised to get a declaratory decree from the competent court of law, duly impleading each other. But, instead of doing the same, the applicants filed this OA stating that both of them were well aware of all the events and the marriage with the 2nd Applicant was performed with the consent of 1st Applicant is nothing but creation for the purpose of the case which is in total contrast to the allegations made Page 5 of 8 OA/272/2021 by the 1st Applicant against the 2nd Applicant, during initial stage, that her husband never got married to the 2nd Applicant and there was no marital relationship between them and alleged that her husband was murdered by the 2nd Applicant..
III) With regard to the family declaration forms, it is submitted that the deceased employee had not mentioned both the applicants' names in the same declaration form. The declaration forms were submitted in different years and the issue of two wives could not have been noticed by the supervisory official at that time, due to change in dealing staff. If the issue was not questioned at that point of time, it does not become a valid reason for accepting both the women as legally wedded wives of the deceased employee. The respondents' counsel submitted that the main issue of the case is to identify the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and, as advised by the respondents, 'declaratory decree from a competent court of law' is necessary to decide the same. In this regard, the respondents' counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in OA/1027/2016 dt. 11.01.2023.
4. The applicant's counsel has filed rejoinder and written submissions, reiterating the facts of the case. It is submitted that the judgment of this Tribunal relied upon by the respondents is not applicable in the present case. With regard to the contention of the applicant that the deceased employee has not mentioned the names of the applicants in the same family declaration form, he submitted that though plural wives are permitted under customary law, privilege Page 6 of 8 OA/272/2021 pass will be given to one wife only. So, the deceased employee might have submitted the applicants' names in different years to avail the same. The applicant's counsel has stated that due to poverty and, as there is no alternative left for the applicants, they have compromised and come to an agreement to share the terminal benefits and pension @ 50% each as per provisions of Section 70(5) & 71(1)(a) & (b) of the Railway Services(Pension) Rules, 1993. He has relied upon the Order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.608-PB of 1988 dt. 01.02.1989 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. O.P. Gupta in Dairy No.27824 of 2022 dt. 19.09.2022.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings on record.
6. I) From the records, I find there are few inconsistencies i.e. the Railway authorities first learnt about the demise of Mr. P Babaiah, only from the Letter dt. 18.12.2012 from one Mr. P Mabu Subhan, while at one point, the name is spelt as P. Mabu and, at another place, it is mentioned as Mahaboob Subhan. In the same Letter dt. 18.12.2012 addressed by Mr. P. Mabu Subhan to the General Manager, South Central Railway, he mentions that his father was murdered in the year 2009 by alleged wife of my father, by name Ameena Bai, whereas, from the records, we find that Ameena Bee is his mother. From the application under RTI Act, 2005 dt. 30.08.2017 filed by Smt. Ameena Bee, she is claiming that the second wife, Smt. Munthaj Begum had hatched a plot and trapped Page 7 of 8 OA/272/2021 her husband into marriage with an ulterior motive to gain benefits of final settlement dues.
II) There is no guarantee that these women will once again not fight after disbursal of the terminal benefits. The judgment by the Court of the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District dt. 25.08.2011 only acquits the second wife, Smt. Munni Begum, from the murder charges and does not conclude anything about her marital status. The arguments of the applicants' counsel that the deceased, Mr. P. Babaiah, had given the names of his first and second wife, Smt. Ameena Bee & Smt. Mumataz Begum in different years as part of family declaration is only for the Railway passes, as such are given to only one wife is not tenable, since such family declarations are not meant only for the purpose of Railway passes but also for availing other benefits, including Railway Health Scheme etc. In view of the above mentioned reasons, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B ANAND) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /RAM/ Page 8 of 8