'Claim Made After 30+ Yrs Is Grossly Delayed': Patna HC Rejects 96 Y/O Widow's Plea For Family Pension, Cites Lack Of Substantiating Material
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 96-year-old widow, seeking a family pension for her late husband, a retired Judicial Officer, citing a gross delay of more than 30 years in the claim, coupled with a lack of substantiating material to establish her marital status and her husband's service history.The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran...
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 96-year-old widow, seeking a family pension for her late husband, a retired Judicial Officer, citing a gross delay of more than 30 years in the claim, coupled with a lack of substantiating material to establish her marital status and her husband's service history.
The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Rajiv Roy observed, "The claim made now after more than 30 years is grossly delayed. The petitioner herein also does not have any substantiating material to indicate that she was married to the Judicial Officer."
"Even according to the petitioner, her husband was first married to another lady, from which marriage, they had two children. The first wife is said to have died, but the date of death or the death certificate is not produced. The petitioner's marriage to the deceased employee is also not substantiated," the bench added.
The petitioner, Smt. Rudra Maya Sinha, claimed to be the wife of the late Ram Kishore Prasad Sinha, who served as a Judicial Magistrate in the State of Bihar for 13 years.
According to the petitioner, her husband received a five-year extension after retirement and ultimately retired in May 1963.
The court presumed that the actual retirement might have occurred five years earlier, and in 1963, his extension came to an end. Ram Kishore Prasad Sinha passed away on June 20, 1989, while still drawing a pension.
The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence of her marriage to the deceased Judicial Officer. It noted that her husband was reportedly first married to another woman, and there was no documentation proving the death of the first wife. The petitioner's marriage to the deceased officer was also not substantiated.
The court further pointed out that the petitioner's reliance on a passport and Aadhar card, both issued long after the death of her husband, lacked relevance. These documents indicated the spouse as Ram Kishore Prasad Sinha but did not establish his service in the judicial sector, the Court said.
The Pension Payment Order (PPO) number was mentioned, but the petitioner claimed that the book was lost. The court took note that, at the time of the husband's retirement, there was no provision for the grant of family pension as per the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
Notably, Family pension provisions were introduced with effect from April 1, 1964, under the Family Pension Scheme for State Government Employees, 1964, before the death of the pensioner.
“For want of any substantiating materials to prove the petitioner's marriage and even to establish the service rendered by her husband and also the gross delay which has occurred, commends us to reject the writ petition,” the Court concluded while rejecting the writ petition.
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate
For the Patna High Court: Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate, Ms. Sushmita Sharma, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad ( SC 8 ). Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to SC 8
Case Title: Smt. Rudra Maya Sinh vs. The Registrar General and Ors
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 153
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7594 of 2023