Mayarani Roy vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1-5 and Mr. H. Deb, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondents No.6 and 7.

[2] This is an application for directing the respondents to release the petitioner's family pension on account of death of Nani Gopal Roy, a pensioner who used to serve under the Factories and Boilers Organization. Nani Gopal Roy since deceased used to get the pension vide PPO No.PEN3/TRIP/S/SUP/3335 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A & E) w.e.f. 01.08.2002. On 21.02.2009, Nani Gopal Roy expired as is evident from the death certificate No.304/2009, Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

[3] Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for lack of awareness, the petitioner could not apply for the family pension in time, but she had approached the authorities for release of the family pension, but finally on 22.11.2017, the petitioner filed her representation to the Inspector of Factories, Government of Tripura by stating that her due family pension had not been related and as a result of which she had been passing her days in extreme hardship. Despite that, family pension was not released. The respondents have filed their respective replies. From the reply filed by the respondents No.1-5, it appears that they have denied their responsibilities in withholding of the family pension by stating that the petitioner had visited the office of the respondent in the month of December, 2016 when the petitioner was asked to submit the death certificate of the first wife of Nani Gopal Roy namely, Malati Bala Roy. But the petitioner had failed to submit the same.

[4] The respondents No.1 to 5 by the letter dated 03.04.2017, Annexure-2 to the writ petition, had reminded the petitioner for submitting the death certificate. The respondent No.4 received the death certificate of Malati Bala Roy on 24.11.2017 along with a letter dated 22.11.2017, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After receiving the said death certificate on 24.11.2017, the respondent No.4 forwarded the said death certificate to the respondent No.6 under a forwarding letter dated 22.01.2019, Annexure-8 to the petition. But the respondent No.4 has categorically denied receipt of any letter dated 19.04.2017 as claimed in the writ petition.

[5] In para 19 of the reply filed by those respondents, it has been asserted that the department had sent the proposal for granting the family pension in favour of the petitioner to the Accountant General (A & E), Tripura, Agartala. One Notice was received from the petitioner for sanction of the family pension without further delay. It has been asserted that the office of the Accountant General, Tripura had called for more documents like Marriage Certificate/Proof of Marriage of the petitioner, filled up Form-14, Survival Certificate and 3 copies of photograph of the petitioner by their letter dated 22.01.2019 (Annexure-R1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6 and 7).

[6] Thereafter, the respondents No.1-5 through the concerned officer issued a letter dated 08.03.2019 to the petitioner asking her to submit those documents for onward transmission, but no response was received from the petitioner. A letter dated 02.04.2019, Annexure-10 to the writ petitioner, was received in the office of Factories and Boilers Organization and the said letter was addressed to the Chief Engineer, Factories and Boilers Organization even though no such post did exists in the Factories and Boilers Organization. However, in terms of instruction contained in the said letter, dated 02.04.2019, two members from the said office visited the residence of the petitioner on 17.06.2019 to conduct inquiry.

[7] During the said inquiry, the son of the petitioner namely, Abhijit Roy was present. The petitioner's son was apprised of the requisition made by the office of the Accountant General (A and E), Tripura. Even a letter on 17.06.2019 was issued to the petitioner. Those respondents No.1-5 by their reply have admitted that in the Form 3, the petitioner's name has been recorded at the instance of the deceased pensioner, as his wife. That apart, it appears from the death certificate of Malati Bala Roy, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, that she died on 26.05.1989. Apparent it is that there is no embargo in granting the family pension in favour of the petitioner.

[8] However, the respondents No.6 and 7 by filing a separate reply have categorically taken a position that as per the Government of India decision No.13 below Rule 54 of CCS, (Pension) Rules, the second marriage contracted by a Hindu male after commencement of the Act of 1955 during the lifetime of his first wife will be a nullity and will have no legal effect. Such marriage cannot be saved on the ground of any custom. In fact a custom opposed to an express provision of law is of no legal effect. As such, the respondents No.6 and 7 wanted to verify whether the marriage with the petitioner by the deceased pensioner had taken place during the life time of Malati Bala Roy or not. The petitioner has admitted that no proof of marriage has been submitted either to the respondents No.1-5 or to the respondents No.6-7 directly.

[9] That apart, the respondents No.6 to 7 had asked for submission of the survival certificate of the deceased pensioner and of Malati Bala Roy. But those documents were not produced. As a result, the respondents No.6 and 7 could process the Pension Payment Order (PPO, in short) granting family pension in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, by filing a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents No.6 and 7 has contended that the marriage of the petitioner with Noni Gopal Roy was solemnized in the year 1992.

[10] Malati Bala Roy expired on 26.05.1989. As such there cannot be any basis to contend that the marriage of Nani Gopal Roy and the petitioner had taken place during the life-time of his first wife namely Malati Bala Roy. They have further stated that a joint photograph was submitted by the deceased employee/pensioner for placing the same in his service record. Accordingly, that was placed in the service record and in the From No.3, the name of the petitioner was incorporated. Unless contrary is proved, the said fact of marriage cannot be denied by the respondents No.6 and 7.

[11] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the petitioner shall furnish the following documents through the respondents No.1-5 to the respondent No.6 and 7 in an early date:

(1) A declaration in respect of her marriage with the deceased employee, pensioner affirmed on oath.

(2) The survival certificates in respect of Nani Gopal Roy and of Malati Bala Roy. If these documents are submitted, the respondents No.6 and 7 shall issue the Pension Payment Order (PPO) within 15 days from the date of receipt of such documents.

[12] It is made, absolutely clear that since in the Form-C the deceased employee/pensioner had made the declaration that he married the petitioner and it appears from the death certificate [of Malati Bala Roy] that his first wife died in the year 1989, there cannot be any confusion that the marriage with the petitioner had taken place subsequent to the death of Malati Bala Roy. At least that can be prima facie inferred from the birth certificate of the only son who is borne in the wed-lock of the petitioner and the deceased employee. As such, the respondents No.6 and 7 shall act on the declaration as above, to be furnished by the petitioner by waiving the requirement of frame proof of marriage.

[13] The petitioner shall act as expeditiously as possible in terms of the above direction.

[14] In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.