Christabell Sohtun vs Union of India and Others

S.R. Sen, J—The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:

"The petitioner who took voluntary retirement after completing 30(thirty) years of qualifying service and during her service career her first husband Shri Wesson Shabong, whose name is recorded in her service record deserted her in the year 1988 and died in the year 2008 and in the midst the petitioner married Shri Chester Khonglam and accordingly submitted a joint declaration to the effect that they are living together under one roof and as per their Customary practice they are treated as husband and wife but in the last leg of her service the petitioner was not keeping well and as such she seek voluntary retirement in the year 2013 and after taking voluntary retirement she submitted all the pension papers etc to the Respondents with a hope that her pension and other retirement benefits will be released soon but to the surprise of the petitioner the Respondent instead of releasing pension and other terminal benefits etc. in her favour insist the petitioner to submit the Divorce paper for which the petitioner was unable to submit in view of the death of her first husband Shri Wesson Shabong and further requested the Respondents to process her pension papers without insisting for Divorce papers.

Hence, this petition for a direction to the Respondents to process the pension papers of the petitioner without insisting on Divorce papers".

Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submits that, the petitioner took voluntary retirement from the office of the I.C.A.R, Umiam, Ri-Bhoi District after serving 30 (thirty) years. After her retirement, she was denied pensionary benefits, which she is entitled in accordance with rules and laws.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 and also on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 at Page 8 Para 19 the respondents admitted that, they are not denying the pension of the petitioner, but for the best reason why pension has not been released that remain unanswered.

In reply, Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents submits that, there is no denial for the pension. Earlier she had given the name of her husband as Wesson Shabong, but while filling the pension papers she has mentioned the name as Chester Khonglam. In reply, Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the first husband of the petitioner deserted her and subsequently expired. Then, she got married with another person. Hence, these two names.

After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I could not understand what is the connection or link with the husband''s name because in this instant case, she was a regular employee of the ICAR and served the ICAR as per the Government rules. So, she is entitled to get all her pension benefits. The respondents have no business not to release the pension on the ground that the petitioner has given two names of the husband. However, may be the respondents are in fear that, incase after the demise of the petitioner, there may be another legal hassle between the two husbands. The respondents also admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 and also on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 at Page 8 Para 19 which is reproduced herein below:

"19. That as regard statement made in paragraph 16 are denied and states that there was no refusal for grant of pension in favour of the petitioner, moreover, pending finalization of pension the provisional pension has been granted in favour of the petitioner vide pension order No-RC(P) 55/81 dated 10/09/2014".

I have made it clear that, since the first husband has already expired as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second husband is alive and serving in the ICAR, he will not get any benefit of the pension of the petitioner. The benefit will go to her children as per the rules and laws.

With the above conditions, the respondents are directed to release all pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order.

Accordingly, this instant writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of.