1 2025:CGHC:5735-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 68 of 2025 1 - Smt. Indrani Madharia W/o Late Dr. Nand Kumar Madharia Aged About 64 Years R/o 873, Awadhpuri Colony, Bhatagaon, Raipur (C.G.) - 492001 ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health, Family Welfare And Medical Education Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Senior District Treasury Officer Distt.- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) 3 - State Bank Of India Kawardha Branch, Through Its Manager, Darri Para, Kawardha Distt.- Kabirdham (C.G.)-491995 4 - Chief Manager Centralized Pension Processing Center, First Floor, Kachahri Chouk, Baal Ashram, Distt. Raipur, (C.G.) - 492001 5 - Smt. Dharmin Bai (Claiming To Be Smt. Indrani Madharia) R/o Sadak Para, Village Dullapur, District Kawardha (Chhattisgarh)- 491995 ... Respondent(s) For appellant(s) : Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. for the State Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate for Res. No. 3 and 4 Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, for Res No. 5 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31. 01.2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner/ writ appellant against the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4414/2022 and the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in REVP No. 123/2023, whereby the writ petition as well as the Review petition filed by the petitioner/ writ appellant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case as reflected from the writ petition are that late Dr. Nand Kumar Madharia was a Govt. Ayurvedik doctor who retired from his post in the year 2010 and his pension was fixed and he was getting his pension regularly. He died on 26.06.2021. After death of late Dr. Nand Kumar Madharia, the petitioner moved an application before the respondent No. 2 for releasing the family pension claiming that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and nominee in his official document, Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has released the family pension up to the month of January, 2022 and subsequently, it was stopped. It was verified from the department then she came to know that respondent No. 5 Smt. Dharmin Bai filed an affidavit claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Dr. Nand Kumar Madharia. The petitioner made her representation before the respondent authorities for releasing the pension but no action has been taken, therefore, she filed the writ petition before this Court. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner had submitted that the respondent No. 5 is claiming to be the wife of the deceased on the basis of forged document. On the affidavit of the respondent No. 5, the claim raised by the respondent No.5 is suspicious that she claimed to be married with the deceased on 21.10.2009 and changed her name from Dharmin to Indrani and living with the deceased as his wife since then. The learned Single 3 Judge after considering the nature of dispute between the parties, directed the parties to get their dispute adjudicated by the competent civil court and by granting liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law to redress her grievances dispose of the writ petition vide its order dated 24.03.2023. 4. The petitioner had challenged the said order dated 24.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge by filing of writ appeal No. 264/2023 before this Court. The said writ appeal was also dismissed on 26.06.2023 on being submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that she wishes to file review petition before the learned Single Judge. 5. The REVP No. 123/2023 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2024 passed by learned Single Judge which gives cause for filing of the present writ appeal against the original order dated 24.03.2023 as well as the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in review petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the pension was granted in favour of the petitioner considering the fact that she is legally wedded wife and when the respondent No. 5 approached to the authorities, her family pension has been stopped. He would also submit that the amount of pension is regularly disbursing in another bank account no. 38288601762, therefore, the respondent No. 5 with the connivance of the bank official withdrawing the pension of the deceased employee. He would further submit that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Late Dr. Nand Kumar Madharia and only on the basis of forged document submitted by respondent No. 5, her pension has been stopped which affects the legal and constitutional rights of the petitioner, therefore, the matter needs interference by this Court and the impugned order may be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents on advance copy supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ appeal. 4 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal. 9. In the present case, the claim of pension has been raised by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. Both the parties are claiming to be legally wedded wife of Late Dr. Nand Kumar Madharia. It is the factual dispute as to who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased which are to be decided after leading evidence of the parties. The nature of dispute would certainly falls under the dispute of civil nature which cannot be decided in the writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge after relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. M/s Puna Hinda (2021) 10 SCC 690 and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of dispute between the parties, disposed of writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to get their status decided by the competent civil court. 10. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the writ petition as well as the nature of dispute involved in the present case, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. The issue involve in the present case is about the status of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 as to who is the legally wedded wife of deceased and entitled for family pension. Further, the review petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in which also there is no perversity is found by this Court. 11. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 5 Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.17 10:17:38 +0530