IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19282 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.10.2011 Kartika ..Petitioner Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 577/HR/2010. This petition proceeds on certain admitted facts. One Rameshwar Dayal Indora was serving in the Employees State Insurance Corporation. He died on 6.12.1995. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein claiming to be widow and son of the deceased employee applied for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of pensionary benefits. A Succession Certificate dated 24.04.2005 was granted in their favour entitling them to collect the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee. In the meantime one Smt. Saloon Devi and her daughter present petitioner Kartika (minor) claiming to be the widow and daughter of the deceased-employee initiated legal proceedings in respect to the retiral benefits of the deceased Rameshwar Dayal. Learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani declared the present petitioner as one of the legal heirs of deceased employee alongwith respondent Nos. 4 and 5 holding petitioner to be an illegitimate child of deceased employee. Petitioner No. 2 after the death of her husband CWP No.19282 of 2011 -2- Rameshwar Dayal contacted second marriage with one Hoshiar Singh which fact has been established in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwani vide his order dated 20.03.2002. Respondent No. 1 on examination of the respective claims of parties decided to release the pensionary benefits in favour of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and the present petitioner. Petitioner No. 2 had also made a claim for compassionate appointment, however, the same was declined on account of her remarriage with Hoshiar Singh. It seems that the official respondents took a stand that the respondent No. 4, widow of the deceased employee, dis-entitled herself for the pensionary benefits on account of her remarriage. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 having been denied pensionary benefits despite Succession Certificate granted by the Competent Court filed the O.A. before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 however, took a stand that respondent No. 4 having remarried is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. The Tribunal vide impugned judgment has held that respondent No. 4 is entitled to the pensionary benefits on the death of her husband in the year 1995 till the time of her remarriage with Hoshiar Singh. The Tribunal has also found that respondent No. 5 son of the deceased employee from Smt. Sunder Devi and the present petitioner Kartika daughter of Smt. Saloon Devi (second wife of deceased employee) are also entitled to share the pensionary benefits. It is contented on behalf of the petitioner before us that Smt. Saloon Devi was married to Rameshwar Dayal in the year 1993 i.e. much before the death of the employee. Hence, she is entitled to pensionary benefits of the deceased employee alongwith respondent No. 5, son of Rameshwar Dayal from his first wife Smt. Sunder Devi. It is also CWP No.19282 of 2011 -3- vehemently argued that Smt. Sunder having remarried is not entitled to claim any pensionary benefits. Tribunal has considered all these aspects. It has been recorded that immediately on the death of Rameshwar Dayal Smt. Sunder, his widow and Raghuvansh his son became entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased employee including retiral benefits. Tribunal also noticed that even though Kartika is from the second wife and the marriage of the deceased employee with Smt. Saloon Devi i.e. second wife has been declared as illegal by the Civil Court but the child is entitled to share in the pensionary benefits equally alongwith first wife and son from first marriage. Regarding the right of Smt. Sunder, it has been clearly observed that on the death of the employee she being legally wedded wife of deceased employee became entitled to the pensionary benefits. It has been also noticed that despite the Succession Certificate issued by the Competent Forum official respondents delayed the pensionary benefits and thus after her remarriage with Hoshiar Singh in the year 2002 her claim cannot be denied up to the date of re-marriage. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned. It is not in dispute that Smt. Sunder Devi was legally wedded wife of Rameshwar Dayal and Raghvansh was her son born out the said wedlock. Kartika is daughter from Smt. Saloon Devi stated to be the second wife of deceased employee. Marriage between Saloon Devi and Rameshwar Dayal has been declared to be illegal. However, petitioner Kartika has been declared to be daughter of Rameshwar Dayal though illegitimate but entitled to inherit property of the late Rameshwar Dayal by the Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 12.03.2008. The Tribunal has rightly returned a finding that Smt. Sunder, first wife of the CWP No.19282 of 2011 -4- deceased employee was entitled to the pensionary benefits immediately on the death of the employee till the date of remarriage. She became dis- entitled for pensionary benefits only on remarriage. Thus, findings of the Tribunal that petitioner herein alongwith respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are entitled to pensionary benefits in equal share till the date of remarriage of Smt. Sunder Devi and thereafter petitioner and respondent No. 5 in equal shares are strictly in accordance with law. We do not find any ground to interfere. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) October 14, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)