S.Kederamma v. The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY WPA/198/2024 (IA NO: CAN/1/2024) M. Damayanti Vs.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and others For the petitioner : Ms. A.S.Zinu For the respondent Nos. 1 - 3 : Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar For the private respondent : Mr. Ananda Halder With WPA/229/2025 Smti. M. Damayanti Vs.
Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and others For the petitioner : Ms. A.S.Zinu For the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar For the private respondent : Mr. Ananda Halder With WPA/5/2021 S. Kederamma Vs.
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and others For the petitioner : Mr. Ananda Halder
For the respondent No. 1-3 : Mr. V.D.Sivabalan Mr. Arun S. Kumar For the respondent No. 4 : Ms. A.S.Zinu Heard on : 25.11.2025 Judgment on : 28.11.2025 RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
1.
The three writ petitions are similar, hence taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by dint of the instant common judgment.
2.
The moot question involved in these cases is whether a person would be eligible for grant of family pension, who herself having discharged duties under the State, is enjoying pension and other retiral benefits, after her superannuation. 3.
Let the factual background of the cases be stated here in a nutshell.
4.
One M. Kurma Rao was an employee as Setter in the Chattam Saw Mill under the department of Environment and Forest, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. One Smt. S. Kederamma has been his wife. Smt. S. Kederamma and M. Kurma Rao (now deceased) entered into a customary divorce as per the than prevailing customs and a 'divorce deed' was executed between them before the local panchayat, endorsed by various witnesses.
5.
The petitioner in WPA/198/2024 namely Smt. M. Damayanti was married to late M. Kurma Rao thereafter. Till the death of M. Kurma Rao (now deceased) on January 04, 2004, they both lived together as husband and wife. After death of M. Kurma Rao, Smt. M.Damayanti obtained a succession certificate from the competent Civil Court by virtue of which she has claimed the family pension of M. Kurma Rao to be released in her favour. Her grievance is that inspite of her being the successor of the deceased person M. Kurma Rao by virtue of the succession certificate granted by the competent Court of law, the respondent authority has arbitrarily and illegally ignored her such right and released/contemplate to release the family pension in favour of the Smt. S. Kederamma, on the ground that a customary 'divorce deed' is not a valid document to severe marriage tie between two persons.
6.
Ms. A.S.Zinu, learned advocate has represented Smt. M. Damayanti, whereas Mr. Ananda Halder, learned advocate has represented Smt. S. Kederamma. The other respondents are represented by Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned advocate. 7.
Ms. A.S.Zinu, learned advocate appearing for Smt. M. Damayanti has submitted firstly that the respondent Smt. S. Kederamma, being herself an erstwhile government employee and having been superannuated, is now entitled to enjoy her
pension. She has referred to the relevant provision of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 to submit that according to Rule 50 (8) (c) of the said Rules of 2021, the pension of a deceased government servant who is survived by more widows than one, is to be apportioned in equal shares between two of them. She has submitted that apart from the Rule as above, the right of Smt. M. Damayanti has been crystallized as regards the family pension after death of her husband, particularly in view of the succession certificate obtained by her from a competent Court of law. 8.
Ms.
A.S.Zinu, learned advocate representing Smt.
M.Damayanti has further submitted that the respondent Smt. S. Kederamma had obtained her service with the government on companionate ground in place of her deceased father with effect from January 23, 1991, only after declaring herself as the unmarried dependant daughter of her late father, thereby concealing and suppressing the fact of her marriage before the authorities. In this regard, she has referred to the application form of Smt. S. Kederamma where evidently the applicant has declared herself to be the daughter of the deceased father, and there is no mention about either her marriage or her husband. 9.
According to Ms.
A.S.Zinu, learned advocate, the respondent authority has also taken a firm stand about
deliberate concealment and suppression of material fact by Smt. S. Kederamma at the time of her induction in service. She further refers to the fact that upon detection of such suppression misrepresentation of fact by Smt. S. Kederamma with the department, she has been subjected to departmental inquiry and found guilty therein. Also that she has been subjected to punishment, though according to Smt. M. Damayanti, such punishment has been in appropriate and not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved against the person Smt. S. Kederamma.
10.
The other writ petition No. WPA/229/2025 has been filed by Smt. M. Damayanti challenging the alleged impropriety of the punishment given by disciplinary authority to Smt.
S.Kederamma vide order dated December 24, 2024. She mentions that the order of the department dated December 24, has not been challenge by the delinquent/Smt.
S.Kederamma. She says that lesser punishment has been granted to Smt. S.Kederamma, whereas she should have been terminated, in view of the gravity of her misconduct. 11.
For the reasons as above the petitioner Smt. M.Damayanti in her writ petition No.WPA/198/2024 has prayed for the relief that she be granted with the family pension due to death of her husband M.Kurma Rao and any order in this regard if passed in
favour of the respondent/Smt. S. Kederamma, may be set aside and she be directed to refund the pensionary amount if received already.
12.
The WPA/5/2021 is by the petitioner Smt. S. Kederamma. The petitioner has prayed therein for a direction to be issued upon the respondent authority, for release of the family pension of the deceased M. Kurma Rao in favour of the petitioner along with the arrears.
13.
Mr. Ananda Halder, learned advocate representing for Smt. S. Kederamma has submitted that his client is legally wedded wife of the deceased person and is entitled under the law for grant of family pension in case of death of her husband. He has submitted that since admittedly the person Smt. M.Damayanti is a second wife of the said deceased person who was married during the lifetime of the first wife of the person and at a time when the marital tie between both was existing in the eye of law, in such circumstances the person Smt. M. Damayanti shall have no lawful right or interest as to the terminal benefits allowable to the deceased government servant M. Kurma Rao. Therefore, he has submitted that only Smt. S. Kederamma would be entitled for grant of family pension in place of her deceased husband.
14.
On the factual background as mentioned above the three successive writ petitions have been filed, which are being decided in this judgment.
15.
In RE: WPA/198/2024:
15.1. The petitioner has been declared by the competent Court law as the successor of the deceased person M. Kurma Rao. The petitioner is also authorized in view of the provision under Rule 50 (8) (c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 which is as follows: "(c) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares and on the death or ineligibility of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her child or children who fulfil the eligibility conditions mentioned in sub-rule (9).
15.2. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time the petitioner has been living together as the wife of the deceased government servant. There is also no serious denial or dispute as regards the fact that the respondent Smt. S. Kederamma after concealing her marital relation with the deceased person and suppressing the fact of her marriage has entered into a government service on companionate ground, in place of her deceased father and continued to serve therein till the time she has attained the age of superannuation. It is also not denied and disputed that the person Smt. S. Kederamma has been
subjected to departmental inquiry and punishment due to concealment of material fact at the time of her induction in service.
15.3. The conduct of the respondent Smt. S. Kederamma not only reveals her ulterior motive but also the fact that severance of marital tie in the form of divorce deed or anything other, has been accepted by the said person Smt. S. Kederamma long ago. She has led rest of her life only singly, with her child.
15.4. It is also not a fact denied in the instant writ petition that after retiring, the said person Smt. S. Kederamma is entitled to and receiving her pension along with other retiral benefits. She being a pension holder by herself would not be entitled for grant of family pension due to death of the person namely M. Kurma Rao, more so in view of the declaration by the competent Court of law about succession rights of the petitioner in this writ petition, Smt. M. Damayanti.
15.5. The provisions under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, as mentioned above also establishes right of the petitioner to the proportionate family pension of the deceased husband along with the other widow, if any. However, in the particular facts and
circumstances of the instant case, even for the argument sake if it is understood that Smt. S. Kederamma has been the first wife of the deceased person, she would not be entitled for any family pension due to the reasons as discussed above. In such circumstances and in the interest of fairness and equity, the petitioner is found to be eligible for the family pension due to death of the person M. Kurma Rao, particularly by virtue of the succession certificate granted to her by the competent Court of law. Hence, WPA/198/2024 succeeds. The present petitioner is entitled to family pension in the event of death of M. Kurma Rao. The respondent authorities Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to take immediate steps for release of family pension due to death of the person namely M. Kurma Rao erstwhile Setter in the Chattam Saw Mill, towards the present writ petitioner, positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this judgment.
16.
In RE: WPA/5/2021:
16.1. On the typical factual background and for the reasons as discussed above, petitioner Smt.
S.
Kederamma is found not to be entitled to family the
pension of the deceased M. Kurma Rao. Hence the writ petition merits no success. Order, if any, already passed in this regard, stands set aside.
16.2. WPA/5/2021 is dismissed.
17.
In RE: WPA/229/2025:
17.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Smt. M. Damayanti challenging the disciplinary proceeding and punishment given by the respondent authority to its employee namely Smt. S. Kederamma/the respondent in the writ petition.
17.2. Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides for writ remedies for a person whose legal or statutory rights have been violated by any action or inaction of the State or its instrumentality, thereby prejudicing the person and jeopardizing his interest. Otherwise a person is not eligible and entitled under the law to approach the Court of equity for grant of relief by exercising the extraordinary and plenary power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17.3. So far as cause of action as propounded by the petitioner in the instant writ petition, the same does not appear to have jeopardized any legal or statutory right of
the petitioner therein. Hence this writ petition amounts to be not maintainable.
17.4.
The WPA/229/2025 is dismissed as not maintainable.
18.
All the three writ petitions being WPA/198/2024, WPA/229/2025 and WPA/5/2021 and the connected application, if any, are disposed of in the manner as above. 19.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)