--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 4992 / 2010 SMT. SUMANBAI WD/O RAMSINGH Vs. STATE OF MP & 3 OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 13/12/2011) The petitioner before this Court, who is a widow, has filed this present writ petition claiming family pension. The contention of the petitioner is that her husband was an employee serving the M P Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitram Co. Ltd., (earlier known as MP Electricity Board) and the husband of the petitioner expired while in service. The family pension was sanctioned and the petitioner has received family pension from 28/2/96 upto 31/12/2008. Grievance of the petitioner is that all of a sudden her family pension has been stopped on account of some frivilous complaint that she is a married lady and has married one Munne Khan. The respondents have filed a return and their --- 2 --- contention is that a complaint was received informing the Department that the petitioner got married to one Munne Khan and thereafter an enquiry took place. The respondents have further stated that the Asstt. Engineer, MPSEB, has informed the Department on 26/11/09 about the remarriage of the petitioner. The respondents have stated that the pension has already been stopped keeping in view the provisions of M P Civil Services (Pension Rules) 1979. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was sanctioned family pension by the respondents w.e.f. 28/2/96. She has received family pension upto 31/12/2008. An allegation has been levelled against the petitioner about her remarriage. The documents filed along with the return includes a so-called enquiry by one Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Asstt. Engineer dt. 26/11/09. The same reveals that he has informed the Department that the petitioner is living with one Halim Khan. The letter further reveals that he has informed the Department to conduct an --- 3 --- enquiry and after obtaining sufficient evidence, to stop the pension of the petitioner. Respondents have also enclosed voter's identity card and the Insurance Policy. However, they are in the name of one Rehana. The petitioner was never heard at any point of time in the matter and based upon some ex-parte enquiry which was also not a conclusive inquiry, conducted by Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Asstt. Engineer, the family pension has been stopped. Not only this, no final order has been passed by the respondents stopping family pension of the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that unless and until it is established that the petitioner has remarried after the death of her husband, the family pension could not have been stopped in the manner and method it has been done by the respondents. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release all arrears of pension to the petitioner positively within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Not only this, the petitioner shall also be entitled for regular pension. --- 4 --- However, a liberty is granted to the respondents to conduct an appropriate enquiry in respect of remarriage of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders keeping in view the provisions of M P Civil Services (Pension Rules) 1979. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR