Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ram Pyari vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 2017
Author: B. S. Walia
Bench: B. S. Walia
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SWP No.2496/2014
Date of order:03.08.2017
Ram Pyari Vs. Union of India & ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. S. Walia, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. V. B. Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC.
i/ Whether to be approved for reporting : Yes/No. in Digest/Journal ii/ Whether to be approved for reporting : Yes/No. in Press/Media.
Oral.,
1. Prayer is for quashing communication (Annexure- G) dated 30.06.2014 whereby the official respondents have turned down the request of the petitioner for grant of family pension during the lifetime of respondent No.5 i.e., Sito Devi or on her re-marriage as also for quashing PPO No.S/JN/34303/1993 stated to have been issued in her favour and to issue the same in favour of the petitioner on the ground that she is the only widow of Late Sh. Mela Ram S/o Late Sh. Hazru R/o Village Dall Tehsil Billawar, District Kathua.
2. In the objections filed by the official respondents, preliminary objections have been taken that in the absence of Divorce Deed between Late Sh. Mela Ram and Sito Devi, alleged marriage of the petitioner with Late Sh. Mela Ram is null and void under Section 11 of SWP No.2496 of 2014 Page 1 of 4 the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner is not entitled to receive family pension, not being the widow of Late Sh. Mela Ram; secondly that the writ petition merits outright dismissal as it raises disputed questions of fact i.e.,
(i) Whether late Sep Mela Ram had divorced his wife Smt. Sito Devi,
(ii) Whether after alleged dissolution of marriage Smt. Sito Devi had remarried;
(iii) Whether Late Sep Mela Ram had married the petitioner after dissolution of his first marriage; and
(iv) Whether Joginder Paul, Sanjay Kumar, Lalita Devi, Neelam Devi and Maya Devi are children of the petitioner or Smt. Sito Devi, as mentioned in the service record of Late Sep Mela Ram.
3. Thirdly as per service record of late Sh. Mela Ram, Smt. Sito Devi is his wife, who has been nominated to receive family pension after demise of Sh. Mela Ram and the name of the petitioner does not figure as wife in the service record of Late Sep Mela Ram. Besides, Late Sep Mela Ram was not authorized to get remarried during the lifetime of his first wife, being bound by the provisions of Para 333 of Defence Service Regulations, that none of the petitioner's fundamental, statutory or SWP No.2496 of 2014 Page 2 of 4 legal rights had been violated by the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Hon'be Court as Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench alone, had the jurisdiction to consider and decide all service matters of Armed Forces Personnel belonging to the State of J&K, that the petition did not disclose any procedural irregularity, as such, the petitioner could not seek redress before this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. However, due to disputed questions of fact involved, without going into the merit of the case, it is deemed appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of appropriate remedy before appropriate Court/Tribunal in accordance with law, otherwise than by way of a writ petition before this Court.
5. At this stage, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that vide order dated 12th September, 2014, sanction of family pension vide PPO issued in favour of respondent No.5 had been ordered to remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Accordingly, protection granted vide order dated 12th September, SWP No.2496 of 2014 Page 3 of 4 2014 be continued till such time that the petitioner approached a competent Court of law.
6. A perusal of order dated 12.09.2014 reveals that sanction of family pension vide PPO issued in favor of respondent No.5 had merely been ordered to remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition. No stay of action in furtherance of issuance of PPO had been granted. Needless to mention, in case the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the competent Court of law/Tribunal, family pension sanctioned in favour of respondent No.5 would be subject to the outcome of the said proceedings.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of in the light of position as noted above.
(B. S. Walia) Judge Jammu 03.08.2017 Ram Murti SWP No.2496 of 2014 Page 4 of 4