LAKSHMI SURI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T.D.Dayal, G.P.A.holder, appearing for party-inperson and Sri B.Appa Rao, learned standing counsel for Central Government for respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) Petitioner is challenging the decision rejecting her claim for share in the family pension. Smt. Santhoshi Kumari, 3rd respondent, is deleted from the array of respondents in view of the orders in W.P.M.P.No.4246 of 2017. However, for convenience sake, she is referred to as 3rd respondent.

(3.) The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would disclose that petitioner married late Amarnath Suri on 18.04.198 Petitioner claims to be the 2nd wife and the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the first wife of late Amarnath Suri. They were blessed with three children born on 14.07.1986, 07.06.1988 and 22.05.1990. Late Amarnath Suri was an employee of Food Corporation of India. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Assistant Manager. Late Amarnath Suri died on 18.12.1997. After the death of late Amarnath Suri, petitioner submitted application to grant family pension to three sons. Since there was no response to grant family pension, petitioner filed W.P.No.22212 of 2000. The writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 007.2001, directing the authority to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. Learned single Judge also observed that Court cannot go into the details of the marriage of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this portion of the observation, where learned single Judge refused to go into the details of the marriage, petitioner filed W.A.No.2266 of 200 On elaborate consideration of the matter, Division Bench modified the earlier order passed by the learned single Judge and directed the respondents that on the appellant submitting a fresh representation addressed to the Regional Director (Food), Southern Region, Chennai, respondents should deal with expeditiously and necessary enquiry/investigation should take place at the Regional Office at Hyderabad after notice to the appellant. The Division Bench further directed to take necessary action on the representation of the appellant within four months from the date of receipt of representation from the appellant. Appellant was also granted liberty to produce all the records during the course of the enquiry. Fresh representation was submitted on 31.12.2003 and it appears by order dated 05.05.2004 claim of the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner then preferred representation dated 18.12.2005 to the Honourable Minister for Agriculture and the same was also rejected holding that children of second wife are not entitled to get share in the family pension during the life time of the first wife.