Smt. Archana Devi & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri S.K. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicants Shri R.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the official respondents as well as Shri S.K. Kushwaha learned counsel for the private respondent.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that applicant No. 1, Smt. Archana Devi, is the legally wedded wife of Late Deepchand and their marriage was solemnized in the year 1997, from which wedlock applicant No. 2, Tannu @ Sejal Jaiswal, was born. Late Deepchand was working as a Tradesman at Kendriya Ayudh Bhandar, Cheoki, Allahabad (now Prayagraj) and died in harness while in service. As Late Deepchand was not maintaining the applicants, applicant No. 1 had instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., pursuant to which maintenance of Rs.2,133/- per month was initially awarded vide order dated 19.04.2006 and subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.5,000/- each for applicant Nos. 1 and 2. After receiving information regarding the death of her husband from his place of employment, applicant No. 1 reached there and was paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards cremation expenses, whereafter she, being the legally wedded wife, performed the last rites of the deceased. The applicants thereafter submitted several representations before the respondents seeking compassionate appointment and other retiral/death benefits of Late Deepchand, but no effective action was taken. Subsequently, the applicants were informed that apart from applicant No. 1, respondent No. 5, Smt. Sushma Devi, was also claiming the benefits as the alleged second wife of the deceased. Applicant No. 1 objected to the said claim, contending that she was the first and legally wedded wife of Late Deepchand, that no divorce had ever taken place between them and that the alleged second marriage of Sushma Devi, during the subsistence of her marriage with the deceased, was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is further stated that applicant No. 2 is the daughter of Late Deepchand and, therefore, the applicants are entitled to the benefits arising out of his death, including consideration of applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment and family pension and other retiral benefits payable to applicant No. 1. The applicants have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in Shakuntala Devi (Smt.) vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Transmission 1st, U.P. Electricity Board, Allahabad and Another in support of their claim.

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, It is respectfully submitted that the claim of the applicant, Smt. Archana Devi, is disputed as the records of the deceased employee, late Shri Deep Chand, contain contradictory family particulars. At the time of his compassionate appointment on 18.05.1995, he had declared himself unmarried. Subsequently, he furnished different family details in 2001, 2009 and 2013, showing different names of his wife and children. Further, the applicant had initiated proceedings before the Family Court, Kanpur, wherein maintenance of Rs.2,133/- per month was directed to be deducted from the salary of the deceased employee and deposited in the Court. After his death, both Smt. Archana Devi and Smt. Sushama Devi claimed entitlement to his terminal benefits. In view of the disputed matrimonial status and conflicting family records, the respondents advised the claimants to obtain a Legal Heir Certificate from the competent Court. Hence, the respondents are not in a position to release the terminal benefits in favour of the applicant without a competent judicial determination of her legal status and entitlement.

Respondent No. 5 has also filed her counter affidavit stating therein that the late Shri Deep Chand was appointed on compassionate grounds on 18.05.1995 after the death of his father, Shri Kishori Lal. Though he initially declared himself unmarried, he subsequently furnished family details in 2001 showing Smt. Archana Devi as his wife and Km Tannu as his daughter, but without producing any marriage or birth certificate. Thereafter, in 2009 and again in 2013, he submitted family details showing different family members, including Smt. Sushama Devi as his wife and Nikhil Kumar, Rajveer and Raj Rani as his children. The applicant had also approached the Family Court, Kanpur, and maintenance was being paid to her from the salary of the deceased employee. In view of these contradictory family declarations and the disputed matrimonial relationship, the respondents could not conclusively determine the applicant’s status or entitlement to terminal benefits.

I heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no. 1 is the first legally wedded wife of deceased Deepchand, who was working under respondent nos. 1 to 4 and died in harness on 27.07.2020. After his death, applicant no. 1 applied for grant of family pension and other retiral benefits and also sought compassionate appointment for applicant no. 2, her daughter, but the respondents, merely relying upon the claim/letter of respondent no. 5, neither sanctioned the family pension and other retiral benefits in favour of applicant no. 1 nor processed the claim of applicant no. 2 for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further submits that applicant no. 1 married deceased Deepchand in the year 1997 and, though their relationship subsequently became strained, she had approached the competent court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein maintenance was granted in her favour, and her subsequent application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance was also allowed; however, at no dissolved, as neither any divorce petition was filed nor was any decree of divorce passed by a competent court. It is, therefore, argued that mere payment of maintenance to applicant no. 1 could not bring the relationship of husband and wife to an end. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no. 5 claims to have married deceased Deepchand in the year 2005, but since applicant no. 1 was alive and her marriage with the deceased was subsisting, any subsequent marriage contracted by the deceased with respondent no. 5 during the subsistence of the first marriage could not be treated as a legally valid marriage and, consequently, respondent no. 5 could not claim family pension, retiral benefits or compassionate appointment on the basis thereof. Referring to paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, learned counsel submits that if respondent no. 5 had actually married the deceased in the year 2005, the children allegedly born out of the said wedlock could not have been born prior to the date of such marriage; however, the dates of birth of the children relied upon by respondent no. 5 themselves belie her claim of marriage with the deceased in the year 2005. Thus, relying upon the pleadings and documents available on record, learned counsel prays that the Original Application be allowed by directing the respondents to grant family pension and other retiral benefits to applicant no. 1 and to consider the claim of applicant no. 2 for compassionate appointment in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the official respondents submits that, since a dispute exists between applicant no. 1 and respondent no. 5 regarding the entitlement to the family pension and other pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, respondent no. 5 has also submitted her claim for grant of family pension and compassionate appointment in her favour; therefore, the official respondents have rightly withheld further processing of the claim of applicant no. 1 until the dispute is resolved. It is further argued that the dispute between the parties is presently pending adjudication before the competent court under the Indian Succession Act and, until the rights and entitlement of the respective claimants are finally determined by a competent court of law, the official respondents cannot proceed to release the family pension or other consequential benefits in favour of any particular counter affidavit, submits that, in view of the subsisting dispute and pending adjudication, the reliefs sought by the applicants cannot be granted at this stage and, accordingly, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submits that respondent no. 5 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Deepchand, having married him in the year 2005, and that the children reflected in the service records of the deceased employee were born out of their wedlock. It is further argued that the service record itself records respondent no. 5 as the wife of the deceased employee and, since the deceased died while in service, respondent no. 5 is entitled to grant of family pension and other consequential pensionary benefits. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the official respondents be directed to release the family pension in favour of respondent no. 5 and to consider her claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the applicable rules. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Rinki Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others, 2024:AHC-LKO:64080-DB.

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

The admitted facts between the parties are that Deepchand, husband of Applicant No. 1, died while in service in the year 2020. Applicant No. 1 married the deceased employee in the year 1997. During the subsistence of their marriage, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Applicant No. 1 was decided in her favour, whereby maintenance was awarded to her against the deceased husband. The amount of maintenance was subsequently enhanced on an application moved under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Nothing has been brought on record by the official respondents or Respondent No. 5 to establish that the marital relationship between Applicant No. 1 and the deceased employee had ceased to exist by virtue of any dissolution of marriage or decree of divorce. On the contrary, the record reveals that, till date, Applicant No. 1 continues to be recognised as the wife of the deceased employee. If the pleadings of Respondent No. 5 are taken into consideration, subsistence of his first marriage with Applicant No. 1. Consequently, the subsequent marriage between Respondent No. 5 and Deepchand was void in the eyes of law. This view finds support from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 3288 of 2017, decided on 31.07.2019. As held in Rameshwari Devi (supra), a second marriage solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage under Hindu law is void and cannot confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that applicant no. 1, Smt. Archana Devi, being the first legally wedded wife of late Deepchand, is entitled to consideration for grant of family pension of the deceased employee. The subsequent marriage claimed by respondent no. 5 with late Deepchand in the year 2005, having admittedly been contracted during the subsistence of the marriage of applicant no. 1 with the deceased, cannot confer upon respondent no. 5 the status of a legally wedded wife or entitlement to family pension in that capacity. Accordingly, the official respondents are directed to process and release the family pension, in accordance with the applicable rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

So far as the claim of respondent no. 5 in respect of her children and the claim of applicant no. 2 for compassionate appointment are concerned, the same requires separate consideration. Merely because respondent no. 5 does not have the status of a legally wedded wife, the children born from her alleged relationship with late Deepchand cannot be denied consideration without determining whether they were, in fact, born out of the relationship between the deceased employee and respondent no. 5. The official respondents shall, therefore, conduct an appropriate inquiry, after affording reasonable opportunity to the concerned parties, with regard to the paternity/status of the children claimed by respondent no. 5 and shall examine the relevant service records and other material available on record. Such inquiry shall be confined to determining whether the children claimed by respondent no. 5 are the children of late Deepchand and, if so, their entitlement to the benefits permissible to children under the applicable rules.

Upon completion of the aforesaid inquiry, the competent authority shall consider the claim of applicant no. 2 for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, having regard to the status of the children of late Deepchand, the competing claims and all other relevant factors governing compassionate appointment. If, upon inquiry, it is found that the children born out of the wedlock between respondent no. 5 and the deceased employee are, in fact, the children of the deceased employee, the post-retiral benefits of the deceased employee shall be paid to the applicants as well as to such children, in accordance with the applicable rules. However, if it is found that the children purportedly born out of the wedlock between respondent no. 5 and the deceased employee are not the children of the deceased employee, the post-retiral benefits shall be paid to the applicants alone, in accordance with the applicable rules. The said exercise shall be completed by the competent authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of completion of the aforesaid inquiry.

In view of the above, present original application stands disposed of in terms of the above directions. The competent authorities among the respondents are directed to take decisions on all the issues in the manner discussed hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

All connected Misc. Applications also stand disposed of.