Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. It is stated that Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was posted as ALM with employee no. 23039 in the employment of IPGCL. It is further stated by the defendant no. 2 that the deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat opted for voluntary retirement and accordingly he was relived from the services on 29.02.2008 and that he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2012. it was further stated that he was drawing pention from DVB ETBF - 2002. It is further stated that on the demise of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat on 25.10.2012 one Smt. Mangli Devi lodged her claim for the family pension, claiming that she is the legally wedded wife, however as per the nomination form of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat the name of wife is shown as Smt. Mangli Devi @ Parveen Devi. It was further stated that during the lifetime of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat one lady namely Smt. Parveen had filed a petition CC No. 180/04/08 titled Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 6 of 23 Parveen Devi vs Chander Singh Rawat, wherein she claimed herself to be the wife of Sh. Chander Singh Rawat and consequently claimed maintenance. It was further stated that the medical prescription card issued to late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat on 02.02.1980 in the place of the name of the wife, name of one Smt. Parveen is on record. Furthermore, even while applying for a new medical card name of the wife is written as Smt. Parveen. It was further brought to light that as per CCS Pension rules only a legally wedded wife is eligible for family pension. That on being aware of such discrepancy a clarification was sought from Smt. Mangli Devi, if Mangli Devi and Parveen Devi is one and the same person or two separate persons. However, rather than clarifying on this aspect she preferred a civil writ petition no. 7734/2014, wherein she claimed herself to be wife of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat namely Mangli Devi @ Parveen. However such writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.02.2017 with an observation that the relief sought can only be granted by way of civil declaration. That discrepancy in the name of the wife of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was taken up with IPGCL being the employer of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat. However, as per the information Suit No. 1802/17(Old No. 450/17) Pg 7 of 23 available on the personal file of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat different documents showing two different names were found i.e. in some records the name of wife is depicted as Mangli Devi and in other records it is Smt. Parveen. It is further stated that as the employer of late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was not able to establish the legally wedded wife of the deceased, hence family pension was witheld. It was further stated that once the issue of legally wedded wife is resolved the answering defendant has no objection in releasing the family pension to the legitimate beneficiary.

4. Ex.DW­1/4 certified copy of order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the court of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Ld. ASJ, Delhi.

5. Ex.DW­1/5 is de­exhibited as same is already exhibited as Ex.PW­ 1/DX2 (Colly.) copy of DVB Employees Terminal Benefit Fund application.

6. Ex.DW­1/6 dasti copy of Successor Court order dated 11.12.2017.

7. Ex.DW­1/7 certified copy of order dated 03.07.2004 (Exhibit number is not mentioned in the affidavit).

8. Mark­A is already exhibited as Ex.D1W­2/5 copy of medical prescription card.

ISSUE No. 2:

Whether plaintiff is entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
18. The deceased Sh. Chander Singh Rawat was an employee of DESU (DVB), and being a government servant was governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules. As per such Rules, it is settled proposition that only a legally wedded wife shall be entitled to family pension and for that matter, a second wife shall not be entitled to family pension as a legally wedded wife. As discussed in Issue no. 1 above, since the plaintiff herein has failed to establish her matrimonial status as the legally wedded wife of Late Sh. Chander Singh Rawat, therefore as a necessary corollary, the relief of Mandatory injunction for release of family pension can also not be granted the plaintiff. Accordingly issue no. 2 also is decided against the plaintiff.