P.SAGAYA MARY Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is wife of the deceased G.Punniyanathan. It appears that he married another lady earlier. Even according to the deceased husband of the petitioner, the first wife by name Pushparani eloped with somebody way back in the year 1977. The marriage between the petitioner and her deceased husband said to have taken place in March, 1990. At that point of time, he was working as Welder in the office of the fourth respondent. Thereafter, two daughters were born in the year 1991 and 1994 respectively. A suit was filed by her in O.S.No.40 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Coonoor, seeking to declare her status as wife, which was decreed, though, exparte.

(2.) At the time of superannuation, the deceased husband of the petitioner sought for only lifetime pension. Accordingly, it was given to him. The request made by him was taken into consideration after the suit was decreed against him. On 23.11.2011, the husband of the petitioner died. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for family pension enclosing copies of ration card, legal heirship certificate and the judgment of the civil Court. By the order dated 10.12.2013, the request was rejected on the premise that the deceased husband nominated the first wife at the earlier point of time and by the letter dated 10.07.1995, he has stated that she left him way back in the year 1977 and therefore he should only be given life time pension. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the Original Application inter alia holding that inasmuch as the first marriage was not legally terminated, the petitioner is not entitled for any pension. However, it was observed that for the unmarried daughters, if the Rules provide a separate application can be made. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the decree would govern the parties especially the petitioner and her husband. The respondent ought to have taken into consideration the documents filed viz., ration card, legal heriship certificate and the judgment of the civil Court. It is not the case where the first wife has made any claim. Similarly, the fact that two children were born out of the wedlock is not in dispute. Therefore, both the fifth respondent and the Tribunal took a hyper technical view while rejecting the claim made.