Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Earlier, the applicants had filed O.A. No. 318 of 2013 before this Tribunal. However, as inadvertently the word "unmarried" was mentioned in the said O.A. instead of "married" the applicant requested that the said O.A. may be dismissed as withdrawn and vide order dated 26.04.2013 (Annexure No. A-15 to the O.A.) this Court permitted the withdrawal of the O.A. with the liberty to file fresh O.A.

4. It has been stated in the O.A. that the marriage between Late Molai Ram and Smt Bachani Devi took place when Molai Ram was about 8 or 9 years. Hence, under law, it cannot be termed as a marriage. It has also been stated that in a case filed by Smt. Bachani Devi, Late Molai Ram had specifically stated before the Court that Smt. Bachani Devi was not his wife, nor Shri Anubhav Kumar was his son. The District Court vide order dated 03.06.1996 (Annexure No. A-3 to the O.A.) observed that Smt. Bachani Devi failed to provide any documentary or oral evidence to prove that she was the wife of Molai Ram. Late Molai Ram during the course of employment had opted to nominate the name of his mother as nominee. The same has been entered by the respondents in the service book. After her death Molai Ram had given the name of Shri Jholai Ram and Shri Mohan Ram as his real brothers whose names have been mentioned in Column 1 of the nomination form filled on 04.09.2010 (Annexure No. A-4 to the O.A.) It has been further stated that Smt. Bachani Devi had manipulated the parivar register with the help of concerned authority and obtained the copy of parivar register and included their names in the parivar register (Annexure No. A-14) after the death of Molai Ram on 07.06.2012. Prior to that there was no entry of her and her son.