Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.01 10:50:36 +0530 2025:CGHC:14867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 700 of 2023
Legal Reasoning
Kamla Verma W/o Late Bharat Lal Verma Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Arsanara, P. Devada, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg (C.G.),..(Plaintiff) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rahi Bai Verma W/o Late Bharat Lal Verma Aged About 56 Years Treasury Office, District Treasury, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.),. (Defendants) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 3. Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 4. Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 5. Treasury Officer District Treasury, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
6. Smt. Keshni Devi W/o Shriram Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o Army Chowk, Daldal Sivni, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 7. Ku. Rajeshwari Verma D/o Late Bharatlal Verma Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village - Borsi, Bamleshwari Colony, Near Nar-Narayan Mandir, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 8. Toman Lal Verma S/o Late Bhartlal Verma Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Village - Borsi, Bamleshwari Colony, Near Nar-Narayan Mandir, Durg, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 9. Smt. Chanda Bai W/o Shri Kishore Verma Aged About 39 Years R/o Capital Home Colony Saddu, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents No. 1, 6 to : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate 9 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate 2 For State/ Respondents No. 2 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate to 5 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27. 03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 01.10.2022, whereby, an application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC moved by respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 for impleadment of respondents No. 6 to 9 was allowed and the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the husband of the petitioner/plaintiff was working on the post of Warder under respondent No. 3, who died in harness on 07.08.2020. The petitioner is legally married wife of the deceased and there are two children from their wedlock. After the death of Late Bharat Lal Verma, the petitioner filed a suit claiming benefits of family pension and Smt. Rahi Bai was impleaded as the only defendant. It was pleaded in the plaint that Smt. Rahi Bai is not a legally wedded wife of Late Bharat Lal Verma, but her name has been entered in the service records. A prayer was made for the grant of family pension to her. A relief was also sought to delete the names of Smt. Rahi Bai and her children from the service records of Late Bharat Lal Verma. 3. Defendant No. 1/Smt. Rahi Bai moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead her children (respondents No. 6 to 9) as defendants in the Civil Suit. 4. An application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was also moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for framing an additional issue to the effect that as the children of Smt. Rahi Bai have not been impleaded as defendants, what would be its effect? 3 5. The learned trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2022 allowed the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and vide order dated 28.07.2023, rejected the application moved under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC. The petitioner has challenged both orders by filing this petition. 6. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that according to Rule 47 of C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the children of Government servants up to the age of 24 years are entitled to get the family pension. He would further submit that the children of defendant No. 1 Smt. Rahi Bai have already crossed 24 years of age; therefore, they are not entitled to get the family pension. With regard to Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, he would submit that the plaintiff has not arrayed the children of Smt. Rahi Bai as defendants and on account of non-joinder, the suit may be dismissed and in this regard, no issue was framed by the learned trial Court, therefore, an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was moved, but the learned trial Court committed an error of law by rejecting the said application. 7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 6 to 9 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khetrapal. He would submit that in relief clause (b) of the plaint, the plaintiff has sought relief to declare the nomination of defendants No. 1 & 6 to 9 as null and void. He would further submit that without impleading respondents No. 6 to 9 as defendants, no relief can be sought against them. 8. Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the order passed by the learned Court below. 9. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate appearing for the plaintiff would submit that he does not want to press relief clause No. (b) sought in plaint with respect to the deletion of names of the children of Smt. Rahi Bai. 4 10. As Mr. Khetrapal does not want to press relief clause (b) of the plaint; the order, whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been allowed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside. As the children of defendant No. 1 are not entitled to get family pension; there is no need to array them as defendants. The issue proposed by the petitioner/plaintiff is also irrelevant in light of the above-discussed facts. 11. The petitioner/plaintiff is directed to delete the relief clause (ब) with regard to the children of defendant No. 1/Smt. Rahi Bai Verma sought in plaint before the learned trial Court on the next date of hearing. 12. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. $iddhant Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge