UNION OF INDIA Vs. PADMINI DEHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 22/01/2018 passed in Writ Petition No.1428/2015(S) wherein, the grievance raised by the respondent was against non-grant of family pension.

(2.) Husband of the respondent late Pooran Chand Dehuri, a Head Constable, Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "BSF") sustained multiple injuries due to IED blast by the militant during course of duty in Srinagar on 13/08/2000. He succumbed to those injuries on 30/03/2003 during course of treatment. After the death of her husband, as borne out from the averments on record, the petitioner was taken away to her matrimonial home at Village Go Tamara, District Angul, Orissa where she was detained by her father-in-law and other family members of her late husband who made her signatures on various documents, on the basis of whereof, the family pension and the terminal dues of her husband were settled in favour of her daughters. Later, the respondent escaped from the custody of her in-laws. Where after, on reaching Tekanpur, she filed a representation for grant of pension from the date it was stopped for her daughters after their marriage. As the request was not acceded to, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.7459/2012 wherein, the Appellants took the plea that, on 21/05/2002, the respondent executed a notarized marriage contract with one Shri Lavkush Soni during life time of her husband. Accordingly, denied her entitlement for family pension in the term of Rule 54(6)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1972"). Learned Single Judge by order dated 27/03/2014 while formulating the issue as to the marriage adverted to by the Department, could be said to be legal marriage in the eyes of law and whether such marriage will deprive her of the family pension in lieu of the death of her husband, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following directions:

(3.) The representation preferred by the respondent led to constituting Court of Inquiry vide O/No. Estt./COI/95 Bn/2014/9314-15 dated 09/06/2014 which returned following findings: