CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15329 OF 2005 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sharda, wife of Late Ram Krishna Ram, Senior Abhiyanta, Bidyut Electricity, resident of Village- Lodipur, Ward No.22, Post.Thail Zamania, District- Gajipur, U.P. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, through its Secretary, Patna, Baily Road, Patna 2. The Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna 3. Sri Vishwnath Prasad, Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna 5. The F.C.I. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna Bailey Road, Patna 6. Bimla Devi, so-called W/O late Ram Krishna Ram, resident of village Ashram Road, Sariya, P.O. Sariya, P.s.Sariya, District Giridih.—Respondents ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sinha-2 Mr. Vidya Nand Kumar For the Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh with Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma For respondent no.6 : Mr. Dipak Kumar P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Jyoti Saran,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo no.1206 dated 9.11.2005 placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition as also the order bearing memo ono.1134 dated 27.10.2005 placed at 2 Annexure-2 to the writ petition, whereby his claim for payment of family pension has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the statements made in the writ petition as also in the other affidavits filed in the proceedings, submits that the petitioner was the first wife of the deceased employee late Ram Krishna Ram who retired as an Assistant Electrical Engineer on 31.10.1999 and expired on 11.7.2004. As Late Ram Krishna Ram expired on 11.7.2004, the respondent no.6 being his wife and duly named in the pension payment order to receive the family pension, submitted her application for the said payment which also has been enclosed with Annexure-1. Pursuant thereto, the family pension was being paid to her and she continued to draw the same. Until such time, no dispute came to be raised and it is only thereafter that the petitioner chose to question the authority of the respondent no.6 to receive the family pension claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and in this connection, a legal notice was forwarded on her behalf to the respondent authorities of the Board questioning the action of the Board in according the family pension to the respondent no.6. The legal notice and the prayer made thereunder was disposed of by the respondents upon consideration of the 3 family genealogy, pension form and application submitted by the respondent no.6 for family pension and whereupon it was decided that the grant of family pension to the respondent no.6 was in accordance with the Rules. A communication to the said effect was issued to the petitioner’s counsel on 27.10.2005 (Annexure-2). The petitioner was also separately communicated of the decision vide letter dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure-1). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition assailing the order(s) as contained in Annexure-1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order as contained in Annexure-1, submitted that the orders have been passed without making due enquiry by the authorities. He, with reference to the family genealogy enclosed with the pension payment order, submitted that the daughters named in the said genealogy whose names appear at serial no.3 to 6, are the daughters born from the wedlock between the petitioner and the deceased employee. It is submitted that the fact that the date of birth of the eldest daughter is 14.1.1964 is by itself sufficient to prove that the marriage of this petitioner took place prior to 1964. Proceeding on this argument, learned counsel, relied upon a statement made by the respondent no.6 in a 4 proceeding before the Tehsildar and submitted that the respondent no.6 herself has stated that she was married to the deceased employee in the year 1970. Learned counsel further with reference to the photo identity card issued by the Election Commission of India enclosed with Annexure-4, submits that the said identity card itself certifies the petitioner to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Upon being questioned as to the supporting documents in possession of the petitioner in relation to her marriage with the deceased employee, learned counsel for the petitioner could not produce any such document except the family genealogy. The names mentioned in the family genealogy includes the deceased employee and the respondent no.6. The names present at serial no.3 to 6 are admittedly those of the daughters of the deceased employee. The petitioner claims that they were born from the wedlock between herself and the deceased employee. Whether or not they in fact were born from the wedlock between the petitioner and the deceased employee, is a rebuttable presumption. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in possession of any such document except a family genealogy and the photo identity card to support her marriage with the deceased employee. In absence of any substantive piece of evidence supporting the 5 submission of the petitioner, this Court would not delve into the issue. Even the statement made by respondent no.6 in a proceeding pending before a Tehsildar can not come to the aid of the petitioner. The respondent no.6 has nothing further to do in view of the certification given by the deceased employee himself in her favour, of being his legally wedded wife. The petitioner has not been able to controvert the said position, either by help of direct or indirect evidence which are manifestly absent in the present proceedings. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity with the order passed by the respondent Board placed at Annexures-1 and 2 and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The dismissal of the writ petition, however, would not preclude the petitioner from raising her grievance and seeking a declaration from a court of competent civil jurisdiction as regarding her marital status with the deceased employee and which may be considered and disposed of in accordance with law own its own merits. (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High court, Dated, 29th April,2010 NAFR/ ahk