LAXMI KOM VENKANNA NAYAK Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to grant the family pension under swathrantha Sainik Samman Pension scheme to her treating her as a separate entity in terms of the Government Circular dated 28th July 1982 in No. 8/16/81 (P) issued by the Respondent. Brief facts of the case, which may be relevant for disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that she is the first wife and widow of late Venkanna hamanna Nayak who was a Freedom fighter; and the said Venkanna Hamanna nayak was receiving Pension under "swathantratha Sainik Samman Pension scheme" (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme') from the respondent till his death on 22nd October 1992; and upon his death, the petitioner being the widow of said late venkanna Hamanna Nayak applied for grant of Family Pension under the Scheme both to State and Central Government by means of representation dated 5th January, 1994, copies of which have been produced as annexures-A and Al respectively to the petition; and after necessary enquiry and on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of Uttara Kannada, Karwar, the petitioner was sanctioned family pension of Rs. 250/- per month by the State Government by means of its communication dated 7th august 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C to this Petition; and another sum of Rs. 250/- was paid to the second wife of the said late Venkanna hamanna Nayak one Smt. Satamma. It is the further case of the petitioner that the deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, karwar by means of his letter dated 25th june 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D to this petition, had recommended to the State Government to secure the family pension under the Scheme, payable to the petitioner on the death of her husband late Venkanna Hamanna Nayak in the same way that is being paid to Smt. Satamma who was the second wife of the said late Venkanna Hamanna Nayak; and the State Government also, by means of its communication dated 25th September 1999, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-D 1 to this petition, recommended to the respondent to sanction the Family pension under the Scheme on the ground that she was the first wife of late Venkanna hamanna Nayak. The respondent, by means of its communication dated 25th November 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to this petition, has turned down the request of the petitioner for payment of Family pension under the Scheme; and hence the petitioner has approached this court by this petition.

(3.) SRI Dayanand S. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that undisputed materials on record clearly establish that the petitioner is the first wife of late Venkanna Hamanna Nayak. In terms of the scheme introduced by the respondent, the respondent cannot refuse to pay the family pension payable to the petitioner under the Scheme on the ground that her late husband has not notified to the respondent that the petitioner was his wife and he had only notified one Smt. Satamma as his wife. In support of the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is the first wife of late venkanna Hamanna Nayak, the learned counsel relied upon the heirship certificate dated 8th January 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B to this petition issued by the Tehsildar, Ankola, uttara Kannada District certifying that the petitioner is the first wife of late Venkanna hamanna Nayak and Smt. Satamma is the second wife; and the said late Venkanna hamanna Nayak had children both through the petitioner and his second wife Smt. Satamma; and also the letter-Annexure-D dated 25th June 1995 written by the Deputy commissioner, Uttara Kannada District to the Government of Karnataka recommending the case of the petitioner for securing the sanction of family pension from the respondent and also the communication Annexure-D 1 dated 25th November 1999 written by the State Government to the respondent wherein the State Government had recommended to the respondent to sanction the Family Pension under the Scheme to the petitioner. He also drew my attention to the entry in the Revenue Records, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G, made on 16th July 1957 wherein an entry regarding the decree made by the Civil Court allotting certain properties to the petitioner towards her maintenance by late Venkanna hamanna Nayak. It is the further submission of Sri Naik that as per the scheme sponsored by the respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F to this petition, if there are more than one widows each of the widows is eligible for dependent family pension at full applicable rate treating her as a separate entity; and therefore, the respondent cannot refuse to pay the pension to the petitioner as per the scheme introduced by the respondent. In support of his contention, Sri Naik relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lai Bahandari v. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127 and drew my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment.