Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Salia Khatun vs Eastern Railway on 1 March, 2021
. I- T-- -• t m THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH. KOLKATA O.A. No.350/00 ] 0 76 of 2018 SMT. SALXA KHATUN, daughter of Late Tarikullah Sekh, aged about 46 years, by occupation Unemployed, who worked as Gangman, SSE (PW), Eastern Railway, Suri, Birbhum, residing at Village and Post Office Itagoria via Suri, District Birbhum, Pin-731103.
... APPLICANT VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA, service through the General Manager.
Eastern Railway.i 17. N.S. Road •* i Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700001.
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, Asansol Division.
!• Eastern Railway, having his office at Asansol, District Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-713301.
! ..a":* -••• I :■ :'
3. THE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICER (3), Asansol Division, Eastern Railway, having his office at A, Asansol, District Paschim i Bardhaman, Pin-713301.
4. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL i OFFICER, Asansol Division, Eastern Railway, having his office at Asansol, < District Paschim Bardhaman, Pin-
713301.
... RESPONDENTS
,! A
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
l>
/
!
.1
J
1
"1
. *•
1
/
CENTRAL ADMINJSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA No.O A.350/1076/2018 Date of order: 01.03.2021 Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member SMT. SALIA KHATUN VS.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(EASTERN. RAILWAY)
For the applicant : Mr. B. Chatterjee, counsel
\ For the respondents
: Ms-c^f^fyounsel
* £ *
%
^X %
\ '•j
ORDER b-" 'V
K.
\
This matter is®ken up ingS*iinfte Bencflnlferms of Appeq.di^lll of Rule 154 ' dt \ \ t ? \ ' ' ■ Jf' \t. \ 1 'f V!i^. V of CAT Rules of^nactice, a^no cbrriplicateWquestipntef law iswln^ofeed and with the consent ofboth sides.^ .....r* ! £
2. Thelapplicant seem^to^ei^r^ in rega|d|to 1 reasoned I O ■ / 11 V\ and speaking order da|ed.2M0| 20181 issde«y pjvjsional Railw# Manager, **» I ■ • \ s\^ / Eastern Railway, Asansbl and has sought for the following/elfefs:- / ■ % y ,\w ' / \ \ 'r-- ■■ -b. / / % K f ,r £-
X "a) To quash atid/orset aside therSpeqki^grOrdenpassed bfthe nespondent authority on 22nd March, 20i%ryvhi^h^A/as forfodfdeti to' the applidant q0^27th March, 2018 being No.E/Pen/604/0A-lfaS3j9/2CftJ/SaljgJ$gtufl;^ ^
b) An order do issue directing therespondentvuthorities to consider the 'Talaquenama' 1 i. as the 'Decree of Divorce' and consider the grievance of the applicant accordingly;
1'! c) An order do issue directing the respondent-Railway Authorities to forthwith grant V Family Pension in favour of the applicant along with the arrear Family Pension on and from August 2012 along with 12% interest thereon;
d) Costs;
'I e) Any other order or orders be passed as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper."
3. The speaking order dated 22.03.2018 impugned in the present O.A. reads as under:-
i si 2 Reasoned Speaking Order Sub: OA No.350/01339 of 201,, Satia Khatun (divorced daughter of Late Tarikullah Sekh, Ex.G/Man, Suri) -Vs- UOI. Ref: 1. Order, dtdOl .02.2018 of Hon'bie CAT/Cai.
2. Comprehensive representation of Smt. Salia Khatun, dtd.19.02.2018 received by this office on 07.03.2018.
The undersigned has perused the Order (Oral), dtd.01.02.2018 of Hon'bie CAT/Cai, the comprehensive representation of Smt. Salia Khatun, dtd.19.02.2018 and file of papers and documents submitted by the applicant; On meticulous study of the case file the following facts are revealed:
Smt Salia khatun, divorced daughter of Late Tarikuljah Sekh, Ex.G/Man, Suri had applied for familytpension along with a Talaqnama and other, required papers. Filled in settlement forms were received on 19.9,2016. Since itwas a divorce case, as per extant procedure, legal cell of this office was consulted. The applicant was then advised vide this office-.letter No. E/Famiiy pension/604/DD/SK, dtd. 14.10.2016 to submit the. Decree of Divorce, issued by the competent Court of Law. In response, the applicant submitted order of Ld. Lok Adalat, held at Suri, Birbhum on 11.02.2017 in connection with Mat.-Suit No.12/2016 which was further certified by Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division);, Sadar Cburt, Sirbhum.
ft appears from petition of suit for dissolution of marriage that the plaintiff had prayed for decree -against tie defendant, dissolving the marriage between the pia II IU<I and the defendanL/Accprdingly, the Ld. Lok Adalat passed an order dtd.11.02.2017 that plaintiff to get a. decree, of divorce which was further certified by Ld. Civil Judge as stated above. .
Moreover' Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Sadar Court, Suri, Birbhum vide order dtd. 21.01.2017 recorded a very pertinent observation in the case which is reproduced below: "On considering the verbal submission of the Ld. Lawyers for both sides, and on perusal of the pef/f/on filed today, it appears that there is a probability of settlement between the parties of this suit. Such being the circumstances in view of section 89 of the CPC and the observation made by the Hon'bie Apex Court in M/S Afcons infra Ltd. & Anr Vs. M/S Cherian Varkey constn.....on 26ih July, 2010, let the matter be referred to the forth coming National Lok Adalat Scheduled to be held on 11.02.2017".
The observational :Ld. Court is very dear and there was no'ambiguity that Ld Court observed, .there was a possibility of reconciliation between the parties In view.' of the above; since there was no indication and declaration in the orter of Hon'bie Lok Adalat in Mat; Suit No. 12 of 2016 that the date of Talaqnama, issued by Kazi as the date of dissolution of marriage, the date on which the plaintiff got a decree of divorce was considered the date of Dissolution of her marriage.
The applicant was, accordingly intimated vide this office letter No.E/Family . . pension/604/DD/SK, dtd. :07.04.2017 & 27.06.2017 that she was not entitled for family pension in terms of CPO/ER's SI No. 125/2014 since her parents expired prior to her date of divorce. Her father expired on 26,08.2012 and mother expired on 14.09.2011.
PSRJ 3 Eg V .
(2)
:$ The relevant portion .of Chief Personnel Officer's SI No.125/2C 14 is
:i}. below: reproduced
"INDEX :NO.1058:'-/Family .pension of widowecf/divorced daughters who got - r'£ widowhood/divorcee dfier'the deQth of their parents will not be considered and. where t:r femity pension already-drawn in these cases would be discontinued with immediate J;^ effect. However, no recovery would be made".
|:;v
CONCLUSION. .;. r*
It isl-amply! clear^frofh'-the Tore discussed facts, revealed along with relevant Rules and Ci'rctfla^ Order and Observation of Hobble Court :.f ',that the applicant was-rigMycConsidered not eligible for family pension ^-daughter of the;-3eceased.Ta^way employee in terms of CPO/ER's S! No.125/2014 as divorced •isince her pare&'exgii^;pnprtoherdivorce. m ^ Therefoi?'^e:tep^sfnt^tion of Smt. Salia Khatun 07.03.2018,js'disused 4 received by this office on m A k-Oate: 22 1.2 ■X Divisional Railway Manager 3 r-v ■* • .
Eastern Railway, Asansol m ■■ ■ •W • r*
--ii
4. At hearing Id. colinsel >fdr. the''applicant would place>4he tTalaknama ^ i-V . f ■ ■■ I obtained by-tke^ applicant ^vfeh^bears^ the ciate^of registrati5,n^as|06.01.2008 meaning thereby thaT tnejfactiim of divorce wasfregister^edn 06.01.2008. Ld. \ v\^} / counsel would further place the order of the Judge, LoR AdSlat d'ated 11.02.2017 where having perused the^certified copy of Talaknama Ldf Judge has recorded
--------------- ' that the defendant has alreadyBgiven a djyprce^ahS the Plaintiff admits that she has already received the divorce along with the amount of "Denmehar" and that "we find no reason to disbelief their version". The case was disposed of amicably on compromise. However, Id. counsel would contend that the said order certified the factum of divorce that had took place in 2008, whereas the authorities have wrongly presumed the date of disposal of the Mat Suit 12 of 2016 as the date of Talaqnama and rejected the prayer of the applicant on the ground that she was divorce/that fell after the death of her parents, as such, deprived her of family pension.
5. Ld. counsel for the respondents would, in her attempt to justify the t speaking order, submit that Talaqnama of 2008 would not prevail over the order passed by the Lok Adalat in Mat Suit No.12 of 2016, and that it was a compromise decree between the applicant and her husband Sk. Rijaul in 2016 which dissolved the marriage legally in 2016 and that the Talaqnama of 2008 should be ignored.
6. Heard both sides, considered the [ matter in entirety and perused the
-r,, 'i.
% X 't
i 'H.
records. iX
iU'Wv., \
V
% ■ .-If X if \ X
K l. * .*
7. The applicant in the MAT Suit hid declared jslunder:- .:r-tTK
%
k
/ IS' , *\\ \ } t // A %
p is entitled t^a decree of
? dissolution of grounSs^ientioned above.
: lie'it also m4rned-l0^m^m^lSn betwew*he\&. and the • : has alre^pefdii^^^h^mliirMlarriage Rostral and Kazi on 06.01.2008 beforekhe witness'" ' ^ ' W i \ I.*-
It finis mention injbe decree toelf.
I X_............. t $
J- 'X
8. Dissolfiition ofXarhagfe'idnder Muslim PetiSohal^Lavy By wayipf Talaqnama \ N<. >r o^ty / and simultaneo'&s pay/neiit of a acceptance oP'Denm^ehor/ has-been recognised s--
r.
as a valid instrument, of dissolving marriage [Khola divorce] under Muslim X ' --V' ;
Personal Law as evident from tRe'followin&decisions :
(i) Shahanaj Khan(Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others decided by Rajasthan High Court , Jaipur Bench on 18th February, 2008 where the Respondents insisted on to produce decree of divorce granted by competent Court. It was held as under:-
"When a Muslim woman is governed by Muslim Personal Law and under the Shariat a husband can give talaq by executing talaqnama as per procedure prescribed under the Muslim Personal Law-Insistence to produce decree of divorce is not justified at all and that in case of any doubt she may be asked to .
produce better particulars."
'Mi (ii) Rashid and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another decided by Allahabad High Court on 30.09.2019;
r i ■ L [ 5'
(iii) IMisar & Another vs. State of U.P. decided by Allahabad High Court on 30.09.2019; j-.
(iv) Jamshed Alam Khan & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & Another decided by Guwahati High Court on 07.11.2019; * ?
(v) Mohd. Arqam Khan vs. State of U.P. decided by Allahabad High Court on 09.12.2019. In this case Allahabad High Court held:-
"6. In view of the aforesaid facts, and considering the fact that the parties have settied their dispute amicably, outside the court, the marriage has got dissolved by Talaqnama , copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure -8, ~this // petition is disposed of.
On 10.08.2005 Hon'ble Bombay High Court has ruled that Talaqnama is a valid document and there is no need for a court decree.
1 a.
tv, ^ tv * H I * s
9. No document/judgment has^been?placed on record b^the respondents V- ■: i A t % % '* i :: / ^% % contrary to the aforesaid judfments cited by the applicant. *4 ■ % ^
1. , I
10. It is. noted that tie taTaqhlhi.a rda|fdw06t01.2p08 isst^d bf a Kazi in . ll - '$ ^ 1 accordance witTi Muslim l;Bersooa! Law, way back, in 2008 and in.,a.Gcordance with l ; VV'-■# f ■' law prevailing^s on the dafeiof ^issde iel d^O&iOOS granting^Khqla" divorce
- " '*^4 $ ' l i '^0^ £ \ "-S. ' f with the payment of dentnehor offtRs!5OP0 as alccepted by the wife should be \ A) / treated as com'bJete.\ ■/ '^ / / % / s s. V !/T J ;■ \ '..A' ,/7 jn pi- : •?.
11. The authorities'%ave failed to show that the applicSnt cohabited with the ......
husband after 06.01.2008 or the Talaqnama :w As such denying her family pension would be highly unfair.
12. I, therefore, find no reason not to treat the applicant as a divorced daughter since 2008 itself, i.e. divorced during the life time of parents.
13. In view of such, I would quash the reasoned and speaking order dated 22.03.2018 and remand the matter back to the authorities to consider the i j f » !■
- ."f-i- •• 6 applicant as a divorced daughter in terms of .the Talaqnama which has also been duly taken note of in Mat Suit No.12 of 2016 for grant of family pension.
sir;
*7
14. Let appropriate family pension order be issued within three months.
/ 4
15. Accordingly with the aforesaid observation and direction the O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs. i> -■ (Bidisha Banerjee) Judicial Member sb \ f\ ^ ^ i r % si
- ^s * f %. ■ 5H % % v. % <#■ % J^ i.
■ %
4. ,, :•
k. j"
.f.>& ■4
- •
e
m 0 I %
%
h-K'-Vt; ■ f
& 'm**
•JA-
•'■■Sj'sfc
w.
m r
V %.
•k
if J
?
/ -r i
i f ^ % / k
ur
'M
;■
A
k,■«,
> f#1'" y^V, I
\ / "X
/*.k S'
% / k u.
•/%
,r
k'
\ \ ■i,
\ /y. \ v\V
\ \ /• Jr-/ •;vv
.r-11
X*
V \ $
k.. /
'■'•'•V, J
'kp,
•k. k.
K'**\
i
/
■J
i;
:1»
•1
I
' j'-
\\
■\-