ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
I) Quash the PPO 111864555F vide which the pension claim of deceased Naib Chand was illegally granted. to respondent No.4 who is the second wife of the deceased employee Naib Chand, as the same is patently illegal and contrary to the facts and law
II) Direct the respondents to recover the amount of pension which has illegally been withdrawn by the private respondent and pay it to the applicant.
III) Direct the official respondents to issue fresh PPO in favour of the applicant from the date of death of husband of the applicant.
3
IV) Grant any other relief or direction deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, to which the applicant is held entitled to.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in her pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicant, Smt. Pritma Devi, is the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Naib Chand, who was employed as a Livestock Supervisor in the Poultry Project, Belicharana, Jammu. The deceased employee retired from service and unfortunately expired on 09.09.2021.
b) From the lawful wedlock between the applicant and the deceased employee, two sons and two daughters were born. During the subsistence of this valid and subsisting marriage, Late Shri Naib Chand contracted a second marriage with respondent No. 4, Smt. Nirmala Devi, without dissolution of the first marriage. The applicant asserts that the said second marriage was void ab initio, being in violation of Section 5 of
4
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well as the applicable Civil Service and Pension Rules.
c) It is pleaded that two sons, namely Inderjeet Parihar and Mithun Parihar, were born out of the said second marriage. While the applicant does not dispute the legitimacy of the children for limited statutory benefits, she asserts that the private respondent, being a second wife, has no legal entitlement to family pension under the governing pension rules.
d) The applicant asserts that her status as the first wife stands reflected in several official and public documents. Even the ration card records the name of respondent No. 4 after the applicant, clearly indicating her position as the second wife. Likewise, the death certificate issued by the competent authority also reflects this factual position.
e) It is specifically alleged that after the death of Late Shri Naib Chand, respondent No. 4, in connivance with her sons and certain officials of the department, indulged in manipulation, overwriting, and fabrication of material pension documents,
5
including Form-3 (Details of Family) and Form-7 (Assessment of Pension and Gratuity). According to the applicant, her name and date of birth were deliberately overwritten using whitener and replaced with the name and particulars of respondent No. 4.
f) The applicant further alleges that even the joint photographs submitted for pension processing were tampered with, wherein the photograph of respondent No. 4 was digitally superimposed to falsely project her as the sole widow of the deceased employee.
g) On the basis of the aforesaid manipulated and forged documents, the official respondents issued PPO No. 111864555F in favour of respondent No. 4, sanctioning family pension to her, despite being fully aware that she was the second wife and not legally entitled under the rules.
h) Aggrieved by the said illegal action, the applicant lodged a complaint before the Crime Branch, Jammu, against respondent No. 4, her sons, and the concerned departmental officials for committing fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The
6
applicant also served a legal notice dated 16.11.2021 upon the official respondents seeking cancellation of the impugned PPO, but no remedial action was taken.
i) The applicant asserts that she is suffering acute financial hardship, having no independent source of income, and that the denial of family pension in her favour is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of her statutory rights. Hence, the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned PPO, recovery of pension wrongly paid to respondent No. 4, and issuance of a fresh PPO in her favour.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The official respondents have raised preliminary objections, contending that the applicant has suppressed material facts and that the Original Application is not maintainable in its present form. It is averred that the PPO was issued strictly on the basis of documents and pension papers forwarded by the Head of Office, i.e., respondent No. 2.
7
b) It is pleaded that at the time of issuance of PPO No. 111864555F, there was no mention of the applicant's name in the pension papers received by the Pension Authorising Authority. The Form-3 and allied documents, as submitted, reflected respondent No. 4 as the eligible family member, and therefore, the PPO was issued accordingly.
c) The official respondents deny any knowledge of alleged tampering or fabrication of documents and submit that no illegality can be attributed to them in the absence of any established fraud at the relevant time.
d) Respondent No. 4 has contested the application on the ground of maintainability, asserting that no vested or enforceable right of the applicant has been infringed. It is contended that the applicant has deliberately misinterpreted the Jammu and Kashmir Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964.
e) Strong reliance is placed on Rule 11 of the said Rules, particularly Explanation-I, which provides that the term "wife"
includes plural "wives" and that it is irrelevant whether the
8
marriage was a first or subsequent marriage. On this basis, respondent No. 4 claims full entitlement to family pension.
f) It is further pleaded that the issue of validity or legality of marriage is a disputed question of fact, which falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. In the absence of any decree declaring the marriage void, the Tribunal is stated to lack jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the marital status of the parties.
g) Respondent No. 4 claims that her marriage with Late Shri Naib Chand was solemnized with the written consent of the applicant and relies upon an alleged agreement/deed in support thereof. It is also pleaded that the applicant never challenged the said marriage during the lifetime of the deceased employee and is now estopped from doing so.
h) It is further contended that during his lifetime, Late Shri Naib Chand had made a conscious arrangement whereby the applicant received the entire gratuity amount, whereas the family pension was intended to be paid to respondent No. 4 for
9
discharging family debts and supporting the education of her sons.
i) Allegations of forgery, tampering, and criminal conspiracy are vehemently denied. Respondent No. 4 asserts that the application is malicious, premature, and filed without exhausting alternative remedies, including proceedings before the competent civil or family court.
j) The private respondent, therefore, prays for dismissal of the Original Application with costs.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of PPO No. 111864555F whereby family pension of Late Shri Naib Chand has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 4 (Smt. Nirmala Devi), recovery of the pension amount paid to her, and issuance of a fresh PPO in favour of the applicant. Late Shri Naib Chand was working as Livestock Supervisor in Poultry Project,
10
Belicharana, Jammu. He retired from service and expired on 09.09.2021. The applicant claims to be the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and alleges that respondent No. 4 is the second wife whose marriage, according to the applicant, was void being in violation of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is alleged that respondent No. 4, in connivance with departmental officials, tampered with pension records including Form-3 and Form- 7, leading to illegal issuance of family pension in her favour.
6. The official respondents contend that PPO was issued strictly on the basis of pension papers forwarded by the Head of Office and no illegality was committed. Respondent No. 4 asserts that she is a legally recognised wife for the purpose of family pension under Rule 11 of the J&K Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964; that the marriage was never challenged during the lifetime of the deceased employee; that the applicant had already received gratuity; and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide marital validity.
7. The following questions arise for consideration:
11
i) Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity or legality of the marriage between Late Shri Naib Chand and respondent No. 4?
ii) Whether issuance of family pension in favour of respondent No. 4 violates the J&K Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964?
iii) Whether allegations of fraud, forgery and tampering raised by the applicant can be adjudicated in the present proceedings?
8. The applicant's entire case rests upon the assertion that respondent No. 4 is not a legally wedded wife and, therefore, not entitled to family pension. This necessarily requires adjudication on the validity of marriage. It is settled law that determination of marital status, legality or voidness of marriage, and inter se matrimonial disputes fall within the exclusive domain of the civil court / family court. The Administrative Tribunal, constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, does not have jurisdiction to decide disputed matrimonial questions.
12
9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that no decree has ever been passed by any competent court declaring the marriage of respondent No. 4 void; The marriage subsisted for more than three decades; The applicant never challenged the marriage during the lifetime of the deceased employee.
10. In absence of any declaratory decree, this Tribunal cannot presume the marriage of respondent No. 4 to be illegal. Thus, the foundational premise of the applicant's case is beyond the jurisdictional competence of this Tribunal. Rule 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964 defines "family".
Explanation-I to Rule 11(a) clearly provides that:
• The term "wife" includes plural "wives";
• It is irrelevant whether the marriage is first or subsequent;
• It is irrelevant whether marriage was contracted during service or after retirement.
11. Therefore, under the statutory pension framework applicable in the present case, exclusion of a surviving wife merely on the ground that
13
she is a second wife is impermissible, unless such marriage is declared void by a competent court. The Pension Authorising Authority is bound to act on records submitted by the department. No material has been placed on record to show that, at the time of issuance of PPO, the authorities were in possession of any judicial declaration invalidating respondent No. 4's marital status. Consequently, issuance of PPO No. 111864555F in favour of respondent No. 4 cannot be termed as illegal or contrary to the pension rules. The applicant has levelled serious allegations of forgery, manipulation of records and criminal conspiracy. Such allegations involve disputed questions of fact requiring oral evidence, forensic examination and criminal investigation.
12. It is well settled that the Tribunal, exercising jurisdiction under service law, cannot conduct a roving inquiry into allegations of fraud, forgery and criminal misconduct. The applicant has already approached the Crime Branch, which is the appropriate forum. Mere allegations, howsoever serious, without adjudication by a competent forum, cannot form the basis for quashing a statutory pension order.
14
The applicant admittedly received gratuity during the lifetime of the deceased employee and did not raise any objection regarding family pension arrangements during his lifetime. The challenge has been raised only after the death of the employee, without first obtaining any declaration from a competent court regarding marital invalidity.
13. The Original Application suffers from fundamental legal infirmities, including:
• Lack of jurisdiction;
• Premature invocation of Tribunal jurisdiction;
• Disputed matrimonial questions;
• Absence of any adjudicated finding of fraud.
• Granting the reliefs sought would amount to indirectly declaring the marriage of respondent No. 4 void, which is impermissible in law.
14. For the reasons recorded above, this Tribunal holds that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide marital validity; Respondent No. 4 is
15
entitled to family pension under the applicable rules; PPO No. 111864555F does not suffer from any illegality; Allegations of fraud are beyond the scope of the present proceedings.
15. The Original Application is dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Judicial Member
/harshit /
16