IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7584 of 2023 Decided on: 3rd April, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Umawati ....Petitioner Versus HPSEB & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent- Board to release her family pension from the due date alongwith arrears and interest. Such claim has been put forth on the ground that petitioner is legally wedded wife of Sh. Jai Ram, who had superannuated from the respondent-Board on 31.08.1998 and later died on 10.01.2020. Being widow of deceased Sh. Jai Ram, petitioner has staked her claim upon family pension. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. The respondents in their reply have set out following facts for not releasing family pension to the petitioner:- 2(i) Sh. Jai Ram retired from the respondent-Board as Foreman. PPO number was issued in his favour. Before his superannuation, Sh. Jai Ram had made the petitioner as a nominee in the pension papers. 2(ii) Sh. Jai Ram superannuated on 31.08.1998. Pension was being paid to him regularly. On 01.01.2009, Sh. Jai Ram represented to various authorities of the respondent-Board, submitting therein that:- The petitioner had played fraud upon him by getting prepared a false affidavit, declaring her status therein as his wife; Petitioner was not his wife. No marriage was solemnized between the parties in accordance with Hindu Rites and Local Custom; Petitioner had suppressed true facts from him that she was married to one Sh. Dasia R/o Village Teel, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P. Her marriage with Sh. Dasia had not been dissolved. - 3 - 2(iii) The aforesaid representation of Sh. Jai Ram has been placed on record by the respondents at Annexure R-1. In this representation, Sh. Jai Ram, made a request to withdraw the petitioner as nominee from the final record of the respondent-Board so that she does not get pension after his death. An affidavit sworn in by Sh. Jai Ram in this regard on 13.07.2009 has also been placed on record at Annexure R-2. There is yet another similar representation of Sh. Jai Ram at Annexure R-3 dated 20.12.2012 2(iv) Respondents have also placed on record an order dated 14.06.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division (Exercising the powers of District Judge under Hindu Marriage Act). The order was passed in a petition moved by the petitioner against Sh. Jai Ram under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. One of the issues framed in the aforesaid litigation was:- “Whether petitioner has no locus–standi to file the present petition as no legal or valid marriage was ever solemnized between the parries, as alleged? OPR” The Court came to the conclusion that there was no valid marriage between the parties and hence, declined to confer upon the petitioner status of wife of the respondent - 4 - therein (Sh. Jai Ram). Relevant observations of the Court are as under:- “43. In the teeth of nature of pleadings raised and the evidence adduced, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner had acquired the status of the “wife” of the respondent. It is held so, then it has to be held that she had got no locus-standi to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which pre- supposes existence of a valid marriage inter-se the parties so as to enable a party to successfully invoke the provisions thereof. Accordingly, issue under consideration is decided accordingly.” 3. The above facts disclosed by the respondents- Board in their reply have not been rebutted by the petitioner. It is not even her contention that the decision dated 14.06.2012, rendered in her application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was assailed by her. The decision having attained finality and also taking into consideration Sh. Jai Ram’s representation dated 01.01.2009 (Annexure R-1), affidavit dated 13.07.2009 (Annexure R-2) and application dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure R-3) specifically seeking deletion of the name of the petitioner from his service record with pointed request for not paying family pension to the petitioner after his death, the petitioner cannot be granted family pension. - 5 - 4. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge April 3, 2025 R.Atal