Krishna Bai Uikey vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The petition is preferred by Smt. Krishna Bai Uikey widow of Late Kamal Singh Uikey, who was Assistant Teacher in Tribal Welfare Department. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent No.3/Joint Director, Account, treasury & Pension, Jabalpur whereby the respondent No.3 has awarded family pension of Late Kamal Singh Uikey to his other wife - Smt. Saraswati Bai, the respondent No.7 herein.

It is submitted by the petitioner that she and her late husband got married on 9.6.1986 as per Hindu tradition in District Balaghat and out of this wedlock they also have a son. The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of false and fabricated document made by respondent No.6 and produced before the Collector, Balaghat, the Collector, Balaghat has passed the order regarding legal successors of Late Kamal Singh for compassionate appointment and other pensionary benefits vide Annexure P/1 dated 10.6.1996, which was based on the report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baihar. It is further contended by the petitioner that she is a rustic and illiterate villager and the respondent No.7 and her family members have fabricated the signature of the petitioner on the consent letter and produced it before the Collector, Balaghat and got the entitlement of being legal representative of Late Kamal Singh

Uikey. A copy of the allegedly forged consent affidavit dated 23.8.1996 is filed as Annexure P/2 and on the basis of the order passed by the Collector, the respondent No.7 has obtained the death-cum-pensionary benefits vide Annexure P/3. Although the pensionary benefits are being received by the respondent No.7 but the provident funds have been received by the petitioner as per order of the Block Development Officer, Paraswada dated 16.2.1998 (Annexure P/4). Representations claiming pensionary benefits were submitted by the petitioner to the Treasury Officer, Balaghat but no orders have been passed on the said representations. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965, rule 22 provides that there is no provision for the second wife without the consent of the State. The petitioner has also filed Annexure P/8, which is an order issued by the Secretary, Finance Department wherein it is mentioned that the second marriage is invalid and the second wife shall not be entitled to any pension as per this order.

In return, the respondents No.1 to 6 have submitted that the family pension to respondent No.7 was sanctioned in the year 1996 and the petitioner has filed the instant petition in the year 2011 i.e. after a period of around 15 years without explaining the delay hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. It is further contended that the petitioner herself has given an affidavit that there was settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.7 and the said affidavit was submitted before the Authority stating that as per family settlement if in place of deceased employee, the compassionate appointment is given to the petitioner, then the respondent No.7 would be entitled for family pension. Copy of the affidavit dated 10.6.1996 is filed as Annexure R/1. On the basis of this affidavit, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment whereas the family pension was given to respondent No.7. Since 1997 the respondent No.7 is receiving the family pension and the petitioner has not raised any objection to that effect for the last 15 years and it is now only that the petitioner has challenged the validity of grant of pension.

The respondent No.7 has not filed any return despite notice of the petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is apparent that the petitioner has filed this petition in the year 2011 challenging the order dated 13.9.1996 on the ground that the same was obtained on the basis of forged documents. It is surprising that even after coming to know about such fraud which was played against the petitioner around 15 years ago, no police report has been filed by the petitioner against respondent No.7 and in para 4 of the petition, which relates to the delay in filing the present petition, the petitioner has simply stated that there is no delay in filing the present petition. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the return filed by the respondents No.1 to 6 wherein the petitioner's affidavit dated 10.6.1996 has been filed in which the petitioner has clearly stated that due to the settlement between the two wives, if she gets the compassionate appointment, she would not be entitled to get the family pension. The petitioner has not challenged the validity of the aforesaid affidavit in any court. This Court also finds that actually there are two affidavits executed by the petitioner, one filed as Annexure P/2 dated 23.8.1996 and another filed by the respondents as Annexure R/1 dated 10.6.1996 on the basis of which the petitioner has already been granted compassionate appointment and now after getting into a comfort zone she is trying to raise a dispute regarding the entitlement of respondent No.7 to get the pension. Apart from that, the petitioner has also not stated that when was the marriage of respondent No.7 solemnized with her Late husband Kamal Singh Uikey nor any document has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate her claim that she is the first wife. The judgment of this Court in the case of Smt Koushalya Bai vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and others, 2006(1) M.P.H.T. 257 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner has neither filed nor challenged the enquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer on the basis of which the Collector has passed the order. The petitioner, as observed earlier, after obtaining the compassionate appointment, with a view to deprive the other wife from family settlement has filed this petition and as such no equity can be claimed by the petitioner in this petition who herself has come to this Court with malafide intentions. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case to be interfered with the order Annexure P/1, which has been challenged after a period of 15 years.

Thus the petition fails not only on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner but also on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case on merit.

The petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.