CHRISTABELL SOHTUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

(2.) MR . A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submits that, the petitioner took voluntary retirement from the office of the I.C.A.R, Umiam, Ri -Bhoi District after serving 30 (thirty) years. After her retirement, she was denied pensionary benefits, which she is entitled in accordance with rules and laws.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I could not understand what is the connection or link with the husband's name because in this instant case, she was a regular employee of the ICAR and served the ICAR as per the Government rules. So, she is entitled to get all her pension benefits. The respondents have no business not to release the pension on the ground that the petitioner has given two names of the husband. However, may be the respondents are in fear that, incase after the demise of the petitioner, there may be another legal hassle between the two husbands. The respondents also admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 and also on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 at Page 8 Para 19 which is reproduced herein below: