This writ mfition is filed under Articles 226 and 23? of the Constitution of India, praying '£0 quaeh the ordez'V.<i,»s_;te<jt 18-6-2008 passed by the 211*' respondent vide Anne;§jT1.*e4C.'o:'--._ .,
This writ petition coming on for orders, tbis H
Court made the following:– _. .. H , __
onneneif
Mr. John Pinto, who e_mpioyee Ijuneler the
f1I’St and second 1998. The
petitioner cia1’med.V.fami:1y- iiestated to be
the wife of Joiie petitioner was
paid other monetary benefits till
February, uV2€)_V{}-4. the interregaum, certain
.–v..Smt.vI§’i§;eree1e;j1a ‘f1}ed….._{)’ S.N0.479/1999 for éeelaration
ish_e” Wedded wife of the deceased John
Pi:1.io.””%’The”V’Veei.€i suit was decreed exparte. Thereafter
‘the petitioner filed a misceilaneous petition for setting
H the exparte decree. The said suit
%% —-. §’}.SiNo.479/ 1999 was restored to file of the Trial Court.
Dzlring the pendency of the matter, Mercelana died on
P”?
“3-
19.2.2006. Consequentiy, the suit filed by ..ji1e’1f~..p_[i:.e.
0.8.479/1999 was dismissed as having
Thus, there is no iitigation V
petitioner.
When the facts herein made application and second respondents pension to her. repiy as per that there is no
pesitiveflmrtjier the petitioner by the Civil
Ceu;f’§.:’a;e.d henee_ S§1e earmot be ganted pension.
._ VAV~[.:;’Sediq N. Godwala, learried counsel
V V’ . appearhjg “ca-ii behaif of the petiticmer sugmits that the
ebjecfion was by S:e:zt.Mercelana who had filed the
ulfimately the saié suit came te be dismissed.
” Thus, there is me ligigation against the mfifioner.
H
-4-
According to him, there is no dispute that she
wife of the deceased John Pinto and eonseQi:ier;tiy’,:”‘
petitioner should be paid family pefisiorg.
3. Sri Ajay Patil, learned advagcate
behalf of Sri Ashok V1 ”
2, submits that there is no ..9rder”passed by the
Civil Court in regard ipayiixierfif pension in
favour of the _:’m_titi§_)iier’ the second
respoxiderqt -passing the impugned order.
4. ‘-It is 110tVir1j_ijdi’sp__i:te..«~{11at the petitioner was paid
femiiy ‘ii1.I’.’Fe’br£1s:y, 2004. However, it came to
of filing of the civil suit by
Ultimately, said suit came to be
disnsissed having been abated. Thus, there is no
“0bjectie3t;{from anybody againsi: the petitioner that she is
, ii :t§3;e–i.r?ife of the John Pirate. If ii: is so, there is no reason
M
– 5 ,.
as to why the family pension, which was being paid in
favour of the petitioner should be stopped,
respondents-authorities having got
petitioner is the wife of the deceased * ii ” 2
been paying the pension right
2004. in View of the
circumstances, the Wbicb’ Was” being paid
to the petitioner sho11iCi be paid to the
petitioner. Aee(;:I:’4d.ii1g1y; oreier is made:–
2 _– directed to pay the
family §(:nsi.oI1 “isfieiiitioner as was being paid
career. The i-easy genésion for the period {mm March,
da.y,HHsi1a1i also be disbursed in favour of
i”‘i.i_1e”. not already disbursed in favour of any
fa/3
-5-
Consequemly, the order at Annexure«.(f,_A~
18.6.2008 issued by the second respQnd ¢i1t’ ..
quashed. Petitican. is allowed ” ,