Jabir Hussain Khan vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the applicants and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant was appointed as Master Craftsman in the Ordnance Factory on 08.12.1982 and retired on 31.03.2020. After retirement, his PPO was issued without mentioning the details of his wife. The applicant thereafter approached the concerned authorities for incorporation of the name of his wife, Smt. Sajada Begum, in his PPO. The applicant has also referred to earlier matrimonial/maintenance proceedings and the subsequent compromise. On 14.11.2024, he submitted an application before the Defence Accounts (Pension), Prayagraj, for adding the name of Smt. Sajada Begum as his wife in the pension records, followed by a reminder. The Controller, Defence Accounts (Pensions), vide letter dated 01.07.2024, informed the applicant regarding registration of family details on the SPARSH portal, but the same could not be opened despite efforts. Aggrieved by the non-incorporation of his wife’s name in the pension records, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

The respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, have stated that the applicant was appointed as Master Craftsman on 08.12.1982 and retired on 31.03.2020. It has been submitted that although the applicant subsequently furnished family details showing Smt. Sajda Begum as his wife, the fund slip contained the name of Smt. Safiyan Begum as wife, creating a discrepancy regarding his marital status. The respondents have further referred to the applicant’s earlier marriage with Smt. Roshan Ara, their divorce and the proceedings relating to maintenance of Smt. Roshan Ara and her daughter. It has been contended that the applicant was required to clarify the status of Smt. Safiyan Begum and furnish the relevant documents before any further action could be taken. The respondents have also relied upon the applicable pension rules concerning entitlement to family pension in cases involving a divorced first wife, children and a subsequent wife, and have stated that the claim for incorporation of Smt. Sajda Begum’s name in the PPO could not be processed in the absence of necessary clarification and verification.

The applicants, in their Rejoinder Affidavit, have denied the averments made in the Counter Affidavit and reiterated the contents of the Original Application. It has been stated that the applicant had divorced his first wife, Smt. Roshan Ara, on 11.03.1996, and thereafter his present wife, Smt. Sajda Begum, was duly shown in his service records and family details. The applicant contends that the respondents were aware of his marital status and that his Pensioners’ Identification Card also bears the details of Smt. Sajda Begum. Despite his representation dated 14.11.2024 for inclusion of her name in the PPO, the same has not been done. It is further stated that the discrepancy regarding the name of Smt. Safiyan Begum in the fund slip was an official error, whereas Smt. Sajda Begum is the applicant’s present wife. The applicant has, therefore, submitted that there is no justification for withholding the inclusion of Smt. Sajda Begum’s name in the PPO and has reiterated his prayer for appropriate directions to the respondents.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had duly disclosed the particulars of his present wife, Smt. Sajda Begum, in his service records and family details and that the respondents were aware of the same. It was further submitted that the applicant had already obtained divorce from his first wife, Smt. Roshan Ara, and thereafter married Smt. Sajda Begum, whose name is also reflected in the relevant records and Pensioners’ Identification Card. Learned counsel contended that the omission of her name from the PPO is merely an administrative discrepancy and cannot deprive the applicant of having the correct particulars of his wife incorporated in the pension records. It was, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to examine the applicant’s claim and incorporate the name of Smt. Sajda Begum in the PPO in accordance with law.

Respondents' Submission: Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant's pension records contain inconsistent particulars regarding his spouse, as the fund slip mentions Smt. Safiyan Begum, whereas subsequent family details mention Smt. Sajda Begum. It was further submitted that the applicant's earlier matrimonial relationship with Smt. Roshan Ara and the proceedings arising therefrom also require consideration while determining the entitlement to family pension. Learned counsel contended that, in view of the discrepancy in the records, the applicant was required to furnish necessary clarification and supporting documents regarding the status of Smt. Safiyan Begum and Smt. Sajda Begum. It was accordingly submitted that the respondents could process the request for incorporation of Smt. Sajda Begum's name in the PPO only after due verification of the relevant records and compliance with the applicable pension rules.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to reproduce the representation/letter of the applicant said to be pending with the respondents. The same is as under:-

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the applicant’s aforesaid representation dated 22.01.2024 followed by reminder dated 14.11.2024 for incorporation of the name of Smt. Sajda Begum in his PPO, in accordance with law, after affording due notice and opportunity of hearing to private respondent No. 4, Smt. Roshan Aara, and after considering the relevant records and documents produced by the parties. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant as well as private respondent No. 4 forthwith. With the aforesaid directions OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.

All associated MAs also stand disposed of.