R.Sudharma v. The Director Of Transport And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...
WPA/245/2022 R.Sudharma ... petitioner Vs.
The Director of transport and others ... Respondents Mr. Ananda Halder ...for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents September 22, 2022 [AKB] Item No. 5 The petitioner says that her husband K.Khalid was working as Driver in the Directorate of Transport, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair and further claims that the marriage between herself and the said K.Khalid was solemnized on 15th January, 1990 as per Muslim Personal Law. The petitioner says that prior to her marriage she was an Hindu and accordingly at the time of marriage under the Muslim Personal Law, the name of the petitioner was changed as Sajeeda Khalid from R.Sudharma. However, the original name of the petitioner i.e. R.Sudharma being her maiden name remained unchanged in her testimonial and official documents.
The petitioner further says that out of the wedlock with K. Khalid a male child namely K. Naushad was born at the Primary Health Centre Garacharma at Port Blair. The birth certificate of the said son Naushad is annexed at page 13 of the writ petition. It appears from the said birth certificate that the Father's name of the son is K.Khalid while the Mother's name is Sajeeda Khalid. The petitioner has also relied upon an Allotment Order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman wherein the photographs of K. Khalid and herself has been affixed.
the petitioner claims to have been described as R. Sudharma wife of K.Khalid and has been signed by K.Khalid. The petitioner says that her husband in his service record filed on 07th January, 2004 had declared about the details of family. The said document is annexed at page 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1. It appears from the said document that K. Sajeeda Khalid and K.Naushad has been respectively described as wife and son of K.Khalid, by the concerned employee. The petitioner says that prior to the death of her husband, K.Khalid considering that her documents contain the name of R. Sudharma, her husband had made an application with his employee to change the name of his wife from K. Sajeeda Khalid to R.Sudharma. During the pendency of the said application K.Khalid died.
On his death the petitioner received as certificate from the Hospital declaring K.Khalid to be dead. The petitioner thereafter applied with such certificate to obtain the death certificate of her husband from the concerned authority being the respondent no. 3. The said respondent no. 3 on finding that the two applications for the death certificate of K.Khalid having been made respectively by one R. Sudharma and by one Sahajadi Begum could not issue the death certificate as the death certificate cannot be issued incorporating different spouse names. The respondent no. 3, therefore, wrote to employee of K.Khalid being the respondent No. 1 to furnish the family details of K.Khalid so that the death certificate could be issued.
The petitioner alleges that despite such letter dated 21st March, 2022 no family details has been furnished by respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 3 and as such the death certificate has not yet been issued.
death certificate of her husband the petitioner is facing several difficulties.
The respondent No. 1 says that apart from the family details available in their record which has been disclosed at page No. 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondent No. 1 no other documents are available with them. If the petitioner is satisfied with such document being sent by the respondent No. 3, the respondent no. 1 does not have any difficulty or objection to supply the same.
The difficulty according to the respondent No. 1 arises as the petitioner is seeking correction of the service record and supplying of such corrected service record to the respondent No. 3.
Taking into consideration the overall factual scenario I find that the best course open for substantial justice to be rendered is to direct the respondent no. 1 to first consider the application made by the employee K.Khalid on 12th January, 2021 (appearing at page 25 of the writ petition) i.e. during his lifetime for change of the family details which will take into its fold the issue whether R. Sudharma and K.Sajeeda Khalid is one and the same person. Respondent No.1 shall first take a decision on that application by affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing to find out whether R.Sudharma and K.Sajeeda Khalid is one and the same person as claimed by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 shall be also entitled to call Sahajadi Begum whose name is indicated by the respondent no. 3 in his letter dated 21st March, 2022 by collecting the particulars of Sahajadi Begum from the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 if approached by the respondent no. 1 shall within a fortnight from being so
approached furnished the details of Sahajadi Begum as available with the said respondent. The entire exercise on deciding upon the application made by K.Khalid during his lifetime for change his family details be completed within a period of three months from the date. The order by which the application dated 12th January, 2021 of K.Khalid will be disposed of shall be communicated to the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 with ten days from the date of passing of the same. In the event the respondent No.1 finds that R.Sudharma and K.Sajeeda Khalid is one and the same person and there is no other person who claim to be the wife of K.Khalid necessary correction be made in the service record of K.Khalid by recording the name of R. Sudharma alias K.Sajeeda Khalid in the service book of K.Khalid. The writ petition being WPA/245/2022 is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)