Disposed

Usha Rani Nath (Das ) v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/1345/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife of deceased ONGC employee sought family pension and gratuity share. Court held writ jurisdiction unsuitable for factual verification; directed submission of detailed representation with documents to claim pension. DGM(HR) required to pass reasoned order within one month.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; directed DGM(HR) ONGC to pass reasoned order on family pension claim within one month after receiving detailed representation.

Usha Rani Nath (Das ) Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010027072020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1345/2020

¶5

USHA RANI NATH (DAS )

¶6

W/O- LATE DEBADUTTA NATH, R/O- C/O- SRI RANJU DAS, MEHERPUR, SHIBALIK PARK, UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PART-II, SUKANTA SARANI, P.OSHIBALIK PARK, P.S- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788015

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001

¶10

2:THE CHAIRMAN AND MD ONGC PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHAYAYA URJA BHAWAN 5 NELSON MANDELA MARG NEW DELHI- 110070 3:THE DIRECTOR (HR) ONGC HEAD QUARTER ONGC GREEN HILLS DEHRADUN PIN- 248003 UTTARAKHAND

¶11

4:THE CHIEF MANAGER ONGC CACHAR FORWARD BASE SRIKONA SILCHAR CACHAR

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

ASSAM P.O- SRIKONA DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788026 5:REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER- I BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN VYOMPRASTH KNWALI GMS ROAD DEHRADUN PIN- 248001 UTTARAKHAN

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

15.06.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. SD Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondents in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (in short ONGC), Mr. SK Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S.S Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶20

The petitioner claims to have married the deceased Debadutta Nath on 07.07.2002 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals and that their marriage was also registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 06.01.2003. The deceased Debadutta Nath was an employee in the ONGC. The marriage of the deceased with the petitioner was solemnized after the death of the earlier wife of the deceased namely Pompa Nath and the deceased had two children through his first wife. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims for a direction to the

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

respondent authorities to pay the family pension to the petitioner being the wife of the deceased and also for a direction to the appropriate authorities in the ONGC to pay the petitioner one fourth share of the Gratuity, CPF, EPS, Group Insurance etc being the legally married wife of the deceased.

¶23

Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the ONGC states that most of the retirement benefits in respect of the deceased Debadutta Nath had been paid to his mother namely Jugamaya Nath and to the two children of the deceased through his first wife on the premise that as per the records maintained by the ONGC authorities, the mother Jugamaya Nath was the nominee made by the deceased employee during his life time and the two children being the legal heirs of the deceased. According to Mr. GN Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, records of the ONGC does not provide anywhere that the present writ petitioner is the legally married wife of the deceased, so as to entitle her for the pensionery benefits including the family pension.

¶24

In response thereof, Mr. SD Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a marriage certificate dated 06.01.2003 issued by the Marriage Officer, Cachar, which also bears the signature of the deceased Debadutta Nath and the writ petitioner Usha Rani Das. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to certain other communications made by the petitioner to the DGM(HR)-I/CHR-ER, ONGC whereby it was stated that she is the wife of the deceased Debadutta Nath, who was serving as a Drilling Engineer in the ONGC, Cachar Forward Base, Srikona, but she does not have the details regarding the debts/securities that were left behind by the deceased, so that she can get a complete succession certificate. The petitioner also served certain legal notices upon the DGM(HR), ONGC, wherein reference was made that on 13.06.2012, the petition was submitted by the petitioner to the DGM(HR) directly by

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

attending his office and at that time the DGM(HR) had asked the petitioner that within a short period of time the required information would be delivered to the petitioner. But, in spite of such assurance, as the information was not made available, therefore, the legal notices provided that appropriate legal action would be taken against the ONGC.

¶27

A reading of the representation of the petitioner does not indicate that a specific statement had been made by the petitioner providing that she is the legally married wife of the deceased Debadutta Nath with necessary documents and testimonials to establish that in fact she is the wife and thereafter to make a more specific claim for payment of the family pension in her favour. In the absence of such claim being made and no specific order being passed by the authorities, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would be difficult for the court to arrive at any factual situation as regards the authenticity of the claim made by the petitioner although the relevant laws referred indicates that the petitioner would be entitled to a payment of family pension.

¶28

Accordingly, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be made on a detailed representation being submitted by the writ petitioner before the DGM(HR), ONGC raising the claim that she is the legally married wife of the deceased Debadutta Nath with all necessary documents and testimonials and thereafter make a specific claim for the payment of the family pension. Upon such representation being filed, the DGM(HR), ONGC to pass a reasoned order within a period of one months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

¶29

The petitioner also refers to certain provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to make a claim for the pension. If the petitioner desires to make

¶30

Page No.# 5/5

¶31

such claim, the same may be mentioned in the representation and the DGM to pass a reasoned order. If the reasoned order to be passed by the DGM(HR) is in favour of the petitioner admitting the eligibility of the petitioner for a family pension, necessary consequential order be also passed bringing the process of payment of family pension to the petitioner to its logical end.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above.

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Usha Rani Nath (Das ) v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Rani Nath (Das ) v. Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Hafizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sangita Sahu Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rina Sonowal Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Abdul Jalil Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kayem Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Amjad Hussain Barlaskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.