Pema Pradhan Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pema Pradhan Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed and disposed of: impugned Single Bench order dated 8th January, 2025 set aside; liberty granted to the writ petitioner/first wife and the appellant to file an application before the respondent authorities for a decision on the pension claim; respondents to decide and communicate the rival claims if undecided; future inter se grievances of the two wives left to the Central Administrative Tribunal; all connected pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether any grievance with regard to the service of an employee of the MES must be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995, rather than being adjudicated by the High Court in a writ petition. +1 more

Court's answer

There is substance in the appellant's counsel's contention that grievances regarding the service of an MES employee must be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995; the Single Bench order, though described as innocuous, was passed outside the proper forum.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 8th January, 2025 stands set aside, with liberty to the writ petitioner/first wife and to the appellant to file an appropriate application before the respondent authorities for a decision on the claim for pension on account of the deceased employee.

Key takeaways

If the respondents have not already decided the rival pension claims of the appellant and the writ petitioner, the respondents may take a decision and communicate it to the parties.ratio¶14
Any grievance that the two wives may have against each other may be agitated in future before the Central Administrative Tribunal.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.), 13.05.2025 - MAT 31 of 2025 (with CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025): The appellant, the second wife, challenged a Single Bench order dated 08.01.2025 arising from the first wife's (writ petitioner's) claim to the pension of her deceased husband, an employee of the defence forces (MES); the first wife was alleged to have married again during the subsistence of her marriage with the deceased. Holding that grievances with regard to the service of an MES employee must be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995, the Division Bench set aside the impugned order, granted liberty to both wives to file an appropriate application before the respondent authorities for a decision on the pension claim, directed that undecided rival claims be decided and communicated by the respondents, and left any future inter se grievance of the two wives to the Central Administrative Tribunal. Appeal allowed and disposed of; connected pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

13.05.2025 Court No.1 Item No.25 pk/AP

HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

MAT 31 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025 Smt. Pema Pradhan Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Mayank Bhandari Mr. Rajan Raj

... For the Appellant.

Mr. Sudipto Kumar Mazumdar, Ld. D.S.G.I. Mr. Tridip Saha Mr. Saptak Sarkar

... For the Union of India.

The appellant second wife has challenged an order dated 8^th January, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The dispute raised by the writ petitioner/first wife centers around a claim for pension out of the service of the deceased husband, who was an employee of the defence forces being MES.

The writ petitioner/first wife, sought pension on account of the death of the husband, which was opposed by the private respondent/second wife. It is alleged by the second wife that the writ petitioner has during the subsistence of her marriage with the deceased employee married again. These are on facts.

2

A more fundamental issue is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that any grievance with regard to the service of an employee of MES must be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995.

There is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that the order passed by the Single Bench is rather innocuous.

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8^th January, 2025 shall stand set aside granting liberty to the writ petitioner/first wife as also to the appellant herein to file an appropriate application before the respondent authorities first for an appropriate decision on the claim for pension on account of the deceased employee.

If the respondents have already not decided the rival claims of the appellant and the writ petitioner for pension, the respondents may take a decision and communicate to the parties. Any grievance that the two wives may have against each other, may be agitated in future before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3

With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is allowed and disposed of.

Consequently, all connected pending

applications, if any, are also disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)