SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. K N SURENDRAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Who is to step into the shoes of the deceased first respondent herein to claim the benefit of family pension obtainable from the Railways/petitioners herein i.e. whether it is the second respondent or the third respondent, is the subject matter of dispute in this Original Petition.

(2.) The petitioners, the Railways, were arrayed as the respondents in the Original Application filed by the deceased employee joining hands with the 2nd respondent, who claims to be his wife. The deceased employee was working as Senior Permanent Weigh Supervisor in the Palakkad Division. While in service, he was required to furnish particulars, particularly, the members of the family in the prescribed form and it was accordingly, that Annexure R1 was submitted on 16.06.2010 [which is the renewal certificate, the original one having given way back in 1987]. In the said certificate name of the wife of the employee was shown as P. R. Vijayalakshmi - 3rd respondent herein. Based on the said entry, various benefits were being extended including privilege passes like Annexures R2 and R3 [which however do not disclose the name of the person to whom it was issued]. Later, in the year 2011, the employee wanted to effect some change with regard to the name of the spouse shown in the Family Compensation Certificate. According to him, he actually had married one K. Vasanthakumari and not the 3rd respondent herein. The request made by the employee to effect the change was not acceded to by the Railways, who insisted to produce proper proof from the competent authority/court of law. In the meanwhile, the second respondent herein, joining hands with the children, had moved the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad by filing O.S. No. 572 of 2010 against the employee [petitioner's husband] and the third respondent herein, arraying them as defendants 1 and 2, seeking for a declaration to the effect that the first plaintiff was the legally wedded wife of the employee/1st defendant and other plaintiffs were the children born out of the said wedlock. It is seen that, despite serving summons, the defendants did not turn up and in the said circumstances, the suit was decreed exparte as borne by Annexure A3 dated 22.10.2010.

(3.) Though a copy of the said verdict was produced before the Railways, the Railways did not consider it as a legally acceptable document, as no jurisdiction was vested with the Civil Court to grant any such declaration, as it was within the exclusive domain of the Family Court under the relevant provisions of law. This made the employee to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A. along with K. Vasanthakumari shown as the applicant No.2, wherein the 3rd respondent [whose name was mentioned in Annexure R1] was included as respondent No.3. The claim was resisted by the Railways, particularly, with the objection that the decree obtained from the Civil Court was not liable to be acted upon by virtue of the mandate of Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, read with explanation b thereunder. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, held that the materials on record clearly revealed that the second applicant was the legally wedded wife of the first applicant and that they were to be given the benefits accordingly. It was accordingly, that the O.A. was allowed as per Ext. P3, which made the Railways to approach this Court challenging the same on various grounds, both legal as well as factual. Despite completion of service of notice, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to approach this court, nor has he approached the Tribunal as well.