Smt. Manju Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand & others

There is delay of 107 days'' in filing the Appeal.

In the circumstances of the case, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to condone the delay, which is not opposed. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Appellant is the fifth respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner was the wife of one Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, who was working as a Pharmacist in the Medical & Health Department. He passed away on 17.12.2014. The appellant, it appears, was arrayed as a person, who claims to be the second wife of Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma. The writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents to grant/ sanction the family pension in favour of the writ petitioner and to release the dues of her late husband in the form of Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance, C.P.S.N. and also to direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under the Dying-In-Harness Rules.

By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as follows:

"Petitioner claims herself to be the first wife of deceased- Arun Kumar Sharma. The pensionary benefits of late A.K. Sharma were neither paid to the petitioner nor to respondent no. 5, who also claims herself to be the second wife of late A.K. Sharma.

The matter was got investigated by the District Magistrate through S.D.M., Haridwar. The S.D.M., Haridwar conducted the inquiry and found that petitioner-Smt. Renu Sharma is the wife of late A.K. Sharma, as is evident from letter dated 15.05.2015.

Admittedly, no nomination was made by Late A.K. Sharma.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 submits that as per the letter dated 19.03.2015, petitioner has not obtained the succession certificate. The SDM, Haridwar has already conducted the inquiry. He has found the petitioner to be the legally wedded wife of Late A.K. Sharma. In view of this, the succession certificate was not required.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. The remaining dues are ordered to be distributed equally amongst the petitioner and the children of respondent no. 5.

All pending applications stand disposed of."

Feeling aggrieved, the fifth respondent has preferred the Appeal.

When the matter came up, we referred the matter for mediation. The parties have arrived at a settlement before the Mediator. The terms of the settlement read as follows:

"1. That Late Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma husband of Smt. Manju Sharma and Smt. Renu Sharma was working as a pharmacist in the State Government and he died during his service period Smt. Renu Sharma is the one son master Sidhant Shamra aged about 6 years and a daughter Km. Sristi Sharma aged about 4 years.

That Late Mr. Arun Kumar left two wife and three children after his death some disputes relating to the family pension pensionary benefits and appointment under the dying in harness rules arrises between the parties so the appellant file the said Special Appeal before this Hon ''ble High Court now in the mediation both the parties are agree to settle their dispute in mediation. According to the settlement the first wife Smt. Renu Sharma will be entitled to received the family pension and her daughter Km. Kirti Sharma will get her appointment under the dying in harness rules and the children master Sidhant Sharma and Km. Siristi Sharma through their mother Smt. Manju Sharma will received total service benefits (gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, CPSN) except family pension.

That the both the parties undertake to give respect and honor to each other.

That the parties hereto confirm and declare that/hey have voluntarily & out of their own free will arrived at this settlement /agreement in the presence of their respective Advocates.

That the settlement has been read over & explained to the parties in their own language in presence of their advocates. Signature of parties are also identified by their Advocates.

That both the parties are bound by the terms & conditions of this settlement agreement."

Since it is the mediation settlement affecting the Government, we asked the learned Standing Counsel to get instructions in the matter.

Today, we heard Mrs. Neetu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and also Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate, who appears for the writ petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand would submit that no instructions, as such, could be obtained despite writing to the authority. However, he would submit that there can be no objection except to the term of the settlement that the daughter of the writ petitioner is to be given appointment under the Dying- In-Harness Scheme. He would submit that this may be modified and a direction may be issued to consider the claim of the daughter of the writ petitioner for appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Scheme.

Having regard to the facts, we are also inclined to dispose of the Appeal in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties except for the term that the appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Scheme is to be given to the daughter of the writ petitioner. This is to be modified as the direction that the case of the daughter of the writ petitioner, namely, Ms. Kirti Sharma be considered in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the case is disposed of in terms of the settlement, namely, that the writ petitioner will be paid the Family Pension. If the daughter of the writ petitioner, namely, Ms. Kirti Sharma makes an application for appointment under the Dying-In-Harness Scheme in terms of the Rule within a period of three weeks from today before respondent no. 1, the same will be considered in accordance with law and a decision will be taken on the same without any delay. As regards the amounts to be paid to the children of the appellant, we issue the following directions:

(i) The amount due to the two minor children of the appellant will be arrived at by apportionment of 50% right in favour of both the minor children. In other words, the amounts under the settlement, which we have referred to, which are to be paid to the children, will be divided into two equal parts. The appellant will open separate bank accounts in a Nationalized Bank, having its branch at Haridwar in the name of two minor children with the appellant as the guardian. The opening of the accounts, as aforesaid, will be intimated to respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 within a period of one month of receipt of the intimation from the appellant regarding opening of the accounts will make the payment into two separate savings bank accounts in the name of the minors. Immediately within a period of two weeks of receipt of the amounts in the accounts of the minor children of the appellant, which will be done under intimation to the appellant, the appellant will take steps for putting the amounts in two separate Fixed Deposits in the name of the two minor children under a scheme, which will earn the maximum interest, for the maximum period and it will be kept renewed till the children attain majority.

(ii) Regarding withdrawal of the interest, it is for the appellant to approach the concerned competent District Court and seek directions.

(iii) The entire amounts of benefit, which are in terms of the settlement to be paid to the minor children of the appellant, will be calculated as per law and will be disbursed with as provided aforesaid.

Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.