IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4365 of 2007 CHANDRADEO Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 02/ 08.04.2010 Heard Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Central Government counsel for the Union of India and its authorities. The petitioner is the son of Vidyawati Devi who claims to be the only wife and now the widow of late Shivnarayan Ram 7095289 the Havildar in the E.M.E. Corps in the Indian Army. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father Shivnarayan Ram superannuated from the said post and was drawing pension with effect from 1.7.1989. The father of the petitioner expired on 3.12.1989 and consequent whereto the mother of the petitioner Smt. Vidyawati Devi applied for family pension and which was sanctioned by the office of P.C.D.A. (Pensions) Allahabad vide P.P.O. No. S/016051/89 dated 6.3.1989. The mother of the petitioner was receiving family pension pursuant to the aforesaid order through her bank account in State Bank of India, Bettiah Branch, West Champaran. It appears that the respondent authorities in the Zila Sainik Kalyan Padadhikari, Motihari received a petition dated 28.4.1993 from the respondent no. 5 Smt. Saraswati Devi claiming herself to be first wife of late Shivnarayan Ram. It further appears from 2 paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Union of India that the deceased had given a declaration that his wife Smt. Saraswati Devi, respondent no. 5 had died on 3.2.1971 and that it is after her death that he married the mother of the petitioner Smt. Vidyawati Devi on 16.6.1972. In view of the aforesaid position, the respondents on receiving the petition from Smt. Saraswati Devi on 28.4.1993 stopped the payment of the family pension with effect from 1.3.2000. Although a decision to stop the family pension was taken by the authorities but the same came into effect only upon issuance of the letter dated 26.6.2006 (Annexure-5) issued by the Senior Records Officer, E.M.E. Records, addressed to the Manager, State Bank of India, Bettiah, West Champaran informing him regarding cancellation of family pension in respect of Smt. Vidyawati Devi under the order dated 2.5.2002 of the P.C.D.A. (P) Allahabad, Corps. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is upon receipt of the said letter as contained in Annexure-5 that the payment of family pension was in fact stopped in favour of mother of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that there are ample documents to demonstrate that the mother of the petitioner Vidyawati Devi was the only wife and surviving widow of late Shiv Narain Ram and that the respondent no. 5 Saraswati Devi, is not the wife of late Shivnarayan Ram rather is the widow of late Tuntun Raut. Learned counsel thus submits 3 that in view of the aforesaid position, the stoppage of family pension to the mother of the petitioner, Vidyawati Devi is wholly arbitrary and without sanction of law. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India supports the impugned action by the authorities and submits that as the records available with the authorities contained a declaration by late Shiv Narain Ram that his wife Saraswati Devi had expired and only whereafter he had married Vidyawati Devi, the mother of the writ petitioner, the moment, the representation of Saraswati Devi claiming family pension was received, the authorities acted thereupon and a decision was taken to cancel the family pension order issued in favour of Vidyawati Devi. He thus submits that there is no infirmity in the action of the authorities. I have heard the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and perused the materials on record. The issue is not free from difficulty. There are two ladies claiming themselves to be the widows of late Shiv Narain Ram and although learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mother of the writ petitioner was the only wife of late Shiv Narain Ram, according to learned counsel for the Union of India, the records available in the office of the Army gives a different picture and demonstrates that it is respondent no. 5 who was the first wife of late Shiv Narain Ram. Be that as it may, upon consideration of the 4 materials, this Court without expressing any opinion on the rival claims of the contesting widows deems it appropriate that the matter be considered and decided at the level of the authorities who are in possession of the relevant records and in the present case would be the Commanding Officer, JOB, Special Area, Signal Company, Danapur Cantt, Danapur who has sworn the counter affidavit in the present proceedings, in the circumstances that both the mother of the petitioner Vidyawati Devi who was drawing family pension as the widow of late Shiv Narain Ram as well as respondent no. 5, Saraswati Devi, are resident(s) of Bettiah in the district of West Champaran. Both the parties would be entitled to establish their respective claim by means of supportive documents and other authentic proofs. Taking into consideration that the claim relates to payment of family pension to the widows, I hope and trust that the Commanding Officer would take up the matter with priority and would consider and dispose of the same by a speaking order in accordance with law, after giving due notice and opportunity of the hearing to the mother of the petitioner Vidyawati Devi and respondent no. 5, Saraswati Devi either through themselves or their respective authorized representatives and decide the issue expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)