CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15329 OF 2005
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
Sharda, wife of Late Ram Krishna Ram, Senior
Abhiyanta, Bidyut Electricity, resident of Village-
Lodipur, Ward No.22, Post.Thail Zamania, District-
Gajipur, U.P.
Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, through
its Secretary, Patna, Baily Road, Patna
2. The Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity
Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna
3. Sri Vishwnath Prasad, Secretary, Bihar State
Electricity Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity
Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna
5. The F.C.I. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna
Bailey Road, Patna
6. Bimla Devi, so-called W/O late Ram Krishna Ram,
resident of village Ashram Road, Sariya, P.O.
Sariya, P.s.Sariya, District Giridih.--Respondents
-----
For the petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha-2
Mr. Vidya Nand Kumar
For the Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh with
Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma
For respondent no.6 : Mr. Dipak Kumar
P R E S E N T
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
Jyoti Saran,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order
contained in memo no.1206 dated 9.11.2005 placed at
Annexure-1 to the writ petition as also the order
bearing memo ono.1134 dated 27.10.2005 placed at
2
Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby his claim
for payment of family pension has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, with
reference to the statements made in the writ
petition as also in the other affidavits filed in
the proceedings, submits that the petitioner was the
first wife of the deceased employee late Ram Krishna
Ram who retired as an Assistant Electrical Engineer
on 31.10.1999 and expired on 11.7.2004. As Late Ram
Krishna Ram expired on 11.7.2004, the respondent
no.6 being his wife and duly named in the pension
payment order to receive the family pension,
submitted her application for the said payment which
also has been enclosed with Annexure-1. Pursuant
thereto, the family pension was being paid to her
and she continued to draw the same. Until such
time, no dispute came to be raised and it is only
thereafter that the petitioner chose to question the
authority of the respondent no.6 to receive the
family pension claiming to be the legally wedded
wife of the deceased employee and in this
connection, a legal notice was forwarded on her
behalf to the respondent authorities of the Board
questioning the action of the Board in according the
family pension to the respondent no.6. The legal
notice and the prayer made thereunder was disposed
of by the respondents upon consideration of the
3
family genealogy, pension form and application
submitted by the respondent no.6 for family pension
and whereupon it was decided that the grant of
family pension to the respondent no.6 was in
accordance with the Rules.
A communication to the said effect was
issued to the petitioner’s counsel on 27.10.2005
(Annexure-2). The petitioner was also separately
communicated of the decision vide letter dated
9.11.2005 (Annexure-1). Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner has filed the writ petition assailing
the order(s) as contained in Annexure-1 and 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order as contained in Annexure-1,
submitted that the orders have been passed without
making due enquiry by the authorities. He, with
reference to the family genealogy enclosed with the
pension payment order, submitted that the daughters
named in the said genealogy whose names appear at
serial no.3 to 6, are the daughters born from the
wedlock between the petitioner and the deceased
employee. It is submitted that the fact that the
date of birth of the eldest daughter is 14.1.1964 is
by itself sufficient to prove that the marriage of
this petitioner took place prior to 1964. Proceeding
on this argument, learned counsel, relied upon a
statement made by the respondent no.6 in a
4
proceeding before the Tehsildar and submitted that
the respondent no.6 herself has stated that she was
married to the deceased employee in the year 1970.
Learned counsel further with reference to the photo
identity card issued by the Election Commission of
India enclosed with Annexure-4, submits that the
said identity card itself certifies the petitioner
to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased
employee. Upon being questioned as to the supporting
documents in possession of the petitioner in
relation to her marriage with the deceased employee,
learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce
any such document except the family genealogy.
The names mentioned in the family genealogy
includes the deceased employee and the respondent
no.6. The names present at serial no.3 to 6 are
admittedly those of the daughters of the deceased
employee. The petitioner claims that they were born
from the wedlock between herself and the deceased
employee. Whether or not they in fact were born from
the wedlock between the petitioner and the deceased
employee, is a rebuttable presumption.
Admittedly, the petitioner is not in
possession of any such document except a family
genealogy and the photo identity card to support her
marriage with the deceased employee. In absence of
any substantive piece of evidence supporting the
5
submission of the petitioner, this Court would not
delve into the issue. Even the statement made by
respondent no.6 in a proceeding pending before a
Tehsildar can not come to the aid of the petitioner.
The respondent no.6 has nothing further to do in
view of the certification given by the deceased
employee himself in her favour, of being his legally
wedded wife. The petitioner has not been able to
controvert the said position, either by help of
direct or indirect evidence which are manifestly
absent in the present proceedings.
In the circumstances, I find no infirmity
with the order passed by the respondent Board placed
at Annexures-1 and 2 and accordingly, this writ
petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The dismissal of the writ petition, however, would not preclude the petitioner from
raising her grievance and seeking a declaration from
a court of competent civil jurisdiction as regarding
her marital status with the deceased employee and
which may be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law own its own merits.
(Jyoti Saran,J.)
Patna High court,
Dated, 29th April,2010
NAFR/ ahk