Dharmi Devi vs M/o Railways on 30 December 2020

O R D E R

HON’BLE MS. AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER (A)

1. This Original Application (O.A) has been filed by the applicant Dharmi Devi seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant her family pension by treating her as widow of late Hari Singh. She has also sought payment of arrears of family pension from the date it became due along with interest.

2. Hari Singh was working as Points man with the respondents and retired from service on 23.9.1978. He was drawing his pension through Saving Bank Account No.1163680 based upon PPO No.02795527. He died on 26.1.1999. The applicant submitted her application for transferring his pension in her favour. However, no action was taken by the respondent department. The applicant has brought on record a letter dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure A-4), which is an internal correspondence from Postmaster, Ropar to Sr. Divisional Accounts officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi, in support of her claim.

3. The applicant has also submitted that Hari Singh was originally married with Karmi Devi but she could not bear any child and as such Hari Singh took divorce from her and married the applicant more than 30 years before his death. It is also stated by the applicant that after divorce, Karmi Devi died on 16.2.1992. In support of this, death certificate at Annexure A-5 is annexed with the O.A. It is further stated that the family pension was not released to the applicant because in the service record of Hari Singh, name of Karmi Devi remained recorded as wife and Hari Singh failed to get name of the applicant recorded as his wife even after taking divorce from Karmi Devi.

4. The applicant has also stated that she has one son Subhash Chand, aged 37 years and one daughter Anita Devi, aged 28 years. Their school certificates (Annexures A-6 and A-

7) bear names of the applicant as mother and Hari Singh as father. Besides, the applicant has also annexed copy of the Ration Card of deceased Hari Singh (Annexure A-8) in this regard, which shows the applicant as his wife and Subhash Chand and Anita Devi as his children.

5. The applicant has also stated that the Saving Bank Account No. 1163680 through which Hari Singh was drawing his pension also has the name of the applicant as his wife. In this regard, copy of Bank Pass Book is annexed as Annexure A-9. She has also stated that a legal notice was served on 2.3.2019 (Annexure A-10) which was replied to vide letter dated 14.5.2019 (Annexure A-11). According to the applicant, in this letter the respondents have observed that it was a case of two widows which is not correct as Hari Singh had already divorced his first wife Karmi Devi before marrying the applicant and Karmi Devi had died even before the death of late Hari Singh. As such, Karmi Devi could not be treated as widow of late Hari Singh.

6. The applicant has also submitted that the respondents have observed that no decree of divorce or certificate of marriage has been provided. In this regard, she has stated that divorce was taken by Hari Singh before marrying the applicant and the applicant is neither in possession of decree of divorce nor is aware of particulars of such decree of divorce. She has also stated that Hari Singh did not get any marriage certificate prepared as it was not legally required in those days.

7. The applicant has further stated that the respondents through letter dated 16.5.2019 (Annexure A-12) have stated that record of PPO No.02795527 is not traceable and asked for some documents from the applicant. This was responded to vide letter dated 2.7.2019 (Annexure A-13) where the documents available with the applicant and discussed above were supplied. It was explained therein that it is not the case of two widows nor of two wives as first wife Karmi Devi had already died in 1992 long before the death of late Hari Singh in 1999. However, the respondents are not processing her case and as such, need arose for this O.A.

8. The respondents in their reply have affirmed the basic facts given by the applicant. However, they have stated that family pension was sanctioned in favour of widow Karmi Devi as Hari Singh did not get the name of the applicant updated in the service record after divorce with Karmi Devi and even after her death. They have also stated that even though Hari Singh died on 26.1.1999, neither Karmi Devi nor any other person came forward for grant of family pension. Records prior to 2000 have now been weeded out in terms of the Railway Instructions, as confirmed by Associate Finance Section through their letter dated 16.5.2019.

9. The respondents have also stated that the legal notice dated 2.3.2019 was received by them. However, the applicant is not entitled for the family pension as she has produced no proof to be legally wedded wife of the deceased Hari Singh. She has not provided any decree of divorce of Hari Singh with Karmi Devi or proof of her own marriage with the deceased government employee. She has not even supplied the date of divorce with Karmi Devi or the date of her subsequent marriage with Hari Singh. It is also stated that even assuming that she was married 30 years back as pleaded by her, such marriage during the subsistence of earlier wedlock with Karmi Devi would be a void marriage. They have also stated that the applicant has not produced any documents showing that she was nominated by Hari Singh for Provident Fund, Pension or Gratuity. She has not even shown any proof that she ever availed benefit of medical facilities or Railway Pass during the life time of Hari Singh. They have also stated that the death certificate (Annexure A-5) showing the death of Karmi Devi does not show her husband’s name as Hari Singh. Hence, death of Karmi Devi wife of Hari Singh is not proved. The respondents, therefore, concluded that the applicant has no proof to be legally wedded wife and as such, she is not entitled for family pension.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for opposing sides and have gone through the pleadings and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter.

11. The basic and relevant facts of the case are not disputed. Hari Singh retired in 1978 and died in 1999. Till his death, the service record showed his wife as Karmi Devi. There is no nomination or any other record or document to show that the applicant Dharmi Devi ever availed medical facilities or LTC or even Railway pass as legally wedded wife of the deceased employee during his service or thereafter. This is despite the claim made by the applicant that she was married to Hari Singh ‘30 years before his death’ i.e. sometime in 1969. There is no proof of divorce of Hari Singh and Karmi Devi. There is no proof of marriage of the applicant with Hari Singh. The only proof that the applicant is producing is School Certificates of the two children and Ration Card. However, these cannot be taken as clinching or convincing proof for the applicant to be treated as wife of Hari Singh. Even the death certificate of some Karmi Devi attached as Annexure A-5 does not at all show the name of her husband as Hari Singh. Besides this, the fact is that even though Hari Singh died in 1999, nobody came forward till 2007 for grant of family pension. All these throw serious doubt on the entitlement and claim by the applicant.

12. Besides above, there are many discrepancies in the documents put forward by the applicant herself in support of her claim. The pass book of the account through which Hari Singh was drawing his pension (Annexure A-9) being relied upon by the applicant, shows the name of Karmi Devi as his wife and not the applicant. There is also discrepancy in the number and age of children. Whereas in the O.A, the applicant has stated that she had two children but ration card (Annexure A-8) and legal notice (Annexure A-10) show three children. The School Certificates, Annexure A-6 and A-7 show year of birth of Subhash Chand as 1983 and Anita as 1985 but their age is mentioned as 37 years and 28 years respectively in the O.A. thereby showing a difference of 9 years in their age.

13. Most importantly, there is no proof of divorce of Hari Singh with Karmi Devi. There is also no proof of marriage of the applicant with Hari Singh. The service record of Hari Singh till his death shows his wife as Karmi Devi and not the applicant.

14. In view of all above, it is clear that there is no admissible or convincing proof at all produced by the applicant to show that she is legally wedded wife of late Hari Singh. The service record of Hari Singh continued to show Karmi Devi as his wife even till date of his death in 1999.

15. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this case and as such the O.A. is dismissed. No costs.

(AJANTA DAYALAN) MEMBER (A) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 30.12.2020

HC*