AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maj Sonali Tiwari, 01 Cr. Legal Cell submits that enquiry from the record reveals that in Part II order, name of the second wife is mentioned. However, it is stated that a proper court of inquiry was conducted. Show Cause notice was given to the applicant and thereafter on finding that he had contracted a plural marriage, his services were terminated.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents should incorporate the name of wife of the applicant in the PPO as per Part II order for the purpose of family pension. However, same is objected by counsel for the respondents on the ground that though in Part II order; name of second wife is mentioned. However, the applicant is not supplying necessary details and documents to take a part II order on his first wife. Hence, the name of second wife cannot be recorded in the PPO because termination of the applicant's service was done only on this ground that he contracted plural marriage and the applicant never informed about the name of the first wife and got Part II order issued in the name of the second wife. That being so, the applicant may resort to the remedies available to him under the law. No such direction can be given by the Tribunal because the applicant himself is guilty of not informing the department about the first marriage and during the subsistence of first marriage, contracted second marriage and got part ll order issued in the name of second wife.
Relief claimed in the present OA was for grant of retiral and pensionary benefits to the applicant for which PRO has already been issued by the respondents.
Under the circumstances, nothing survives in the present OA.
Same stands disposed off.