High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 3625/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers- (cid:28)i. To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, o rder or direction of like nature towards setting aside all those nominations sub mitted by the respondent No.6 nominating his illegal 2nd wife in various scheme of the Indian Oil Corporation replacing the name of the Petitioner No.1 as wife and petitioner No.2 as son; AND; ii. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropria te writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Authorities to restore and/ or record the names of both the petitioners as the nominee of the Respondent No. 6 in all official schemes such as Provident Fund, Family Pension, Payment of Gra tuity etc., AND; iii. To direct the Respondent Authorities to strike out the name of the Respondent No.7 from all the schemes of the Corporation as nominee against the R espondent No.6. AND; iv. To allow the petitioners to avail all such benefits those are provid ed to a dependent family members of an employee of the Respondent Corporation. A ND; v. To call for the records of the Departmental Proceeding initiated as s tated in the Annexure-9 letter and pass necessary order so that the Inquiry Auth ority conducts the Departmental Proceeding as per law and for the ends of justic e. AND; vi. And/or any other order/orders directions as Your Lordship may deem f it and proper. (cid:29)
Decision
As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner No.1 is the legally marri ed wife of the respondent No.6, while the respondent No.7 is his 2nd wife. The p etitioner No.1 got married with the respondent No.6 in the year 1981 and a male child, who is the petitioner No.2 was born. However, few months thereafter, it i s alleged that the respondent No.6 married the respondent No.7. In the year 2012, the respondent No.6 filed a divorce petition being No. FC(C) Case No.296/2012, which is now pending before the learned Family Court at Guwahati. Initially the case was filed at Nalbari and later on it was transferr ed to the Family Court in the year 2012. As Disclosed in the writ petition, in t he said proceeding, the petitioner has been provided to maintain Pendente lite @ 7000/- per month. According to the petitioner, although in the service documents, her name was incorporated as the legal nominee, but later on the respondent got the same changed in the name of his 2nd wife i.e the respondent No.7. In this connection , the petitioner has challenged the action of the employer i.e. the Indian Oil C orporation. From the materials on record, it appears that on the basis of the compla int lodged by the petitioners, Disciplinary Authority in the IOC initiated a Dep artmental Proceeding against the respondent No.6 vide charge sheet dated 19.08.2 011 leveling the following charges:- (cid:28)(1) It is alleged that you have committed the following acts of omissio n and commission. The Circumstances alleged against you are narrated below:- (i) That you are working as Foreman(F), Guwahati Terminal. At the time o f joining the services of the Corporation during 1983 as Khalasi, you have furni shed the name of your wife as Smt. Sabita Medhi. You have also declared her as n ominee for receiving PF, gratuity and any other payment due to you in the event of your death. On 28.04.1996, you, while submitting your dependents details afre sh had mentioned Smt. Aroti Medhi as your wife. Vide your letter dated 23.10.198 9, you have further declared that you had married to Smt. Aroti Medhi on 27.11.1 983 and henceforth she will be the nominee for drawing all the dues payable to y ou by the Corporation. Based upon your above declarations, medical benefits and LTC benefits claimed by you in the name of Smt Aroti Medhi have been processed b y the Corporation. (ii) That based upon the representation from Smt. Sabita Medhi that she is the only legally wedded wife of yours and you, instead of living with her, ar e living with another lady Smt. Aroti Nath, SHRM, NEISO vide letter dated 30.11. 2010 sought clarifications from you on the allegations of Smt. Sabita Medhi. In response, you vide letter dated 11.12.2010 has interalia mentioned that you had married Smt. Sabita Medhi during the year 1981 and had never married for the sec ond time. The said clarification, contained in the letter dated 11.12.2010 was t hus contradicting your earlier declaration submitted vide letter dated 23.10.198 9 with regard to your marriage with Smt. Aroti Nath. (iii) That you have deliberately deceived the corporation by giving fals e declaration that Smt. Aroti Medhi is your wife and also availed medical benefi ts and LTC benefits in her name by practicing fraud and/or dishonestly which ind uced the Corporation to part with the money and the same amounts to fraud or dis honesty with the Corporation’s property. (cid:29) With the aforesaid charges leveled against the respondent No.6, the Disc iplinary Authority in the IOC in reference to the certified standing orders had alleged theft, fraud, forgery, embezzlement, or dishonesty, or mis-appropriation against the respondent No.6 and also act subversive of discipline of good behav ior. Pursuant to the charges leveled against the respondent No.6, vide charge sheet dated 19.08.2011, an enquiry was conducted and eventually the charges hav ing been found to have been proved, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penal ty of reduction of basic pay by two stages vide order dated 22.03.2013. I have heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners and als o heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel and Standing Counsel, IOC ltd and so also Mr. T. Bidyut Bikash, learned counsel representing the respondent N os. 6 and 7. Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the duty of the employer i.e. the IOC ltd. to protect the interest of the petitioner No.1 entitling her the benefits available to legally married wife of an employe e of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. He further submits that the name of the petitioner No.1 as the nominee of the respondent No.6 ought to have been mainta ined by the employer instead of allowing the respondent No.6 to substitute the s ame by the respondent No.7. Learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 6 a nd 7 on the other hand submits that in fact the respondent No.7 is his legally m arried wife and that it being the prerogative of the respondent No.6 to nominate his said wife, the same has been maintained in the service records of the India n Oil Corporation Limited. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, IOC, submits that on the b asis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No.1, the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the respondent No.6 and appropriate punishment has been i mposed. However, he submits that as to who is the real wife of the respondent No .6, has not been gone into in the said proceeding. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and have also perused the entire materials on record. My findings and conc lusions are as follows. The fact that the petitioner No.1 is the legally married wife of the res pondent No.6 is not in dispute. The respondent No.6 having filed a divorce suit against her, the said fact is clearly established. However, he has recognized th e respondent No.7 as his legally married wife. In the Departmental Proceeding, i t was alleged that at the time of joining the service of the Corporation in 1983 , the respondent No.6 had named the petitioner No.1 as his wife. However, later on, in the year 1986, when the respondent No.6 submitted the dependent’s details afresh, mentioned the respondent No.7 as his wife. Again vide his declaration d ated 23.10.1989, the respondent No.6 declared that he had married the respondent No.7. It was on that count and in reference to the earlier declaration in the y ear 1983, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited alleged in the charge sheet that th ere was fraud on the part of the respondent No.6. The Charge sheet also referred to the complaint lodged by the petitioner No.1 on the basis of which the procee ding was drawn up against the respondent No.6. As stated in the charge sheet, in response to the complaint lodged by the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.6 st ated in his defence that he had married the petitioner in the year 1981 and had never married for the 2nd time. Thus there was inherent contradiction in the def ence of the respondent NO.6. As to what is the outcome of the said Departmental Proceeding has been noted above. It is submitted that the respondent No.6 has two children to the second wife i.e. the respondent No.7. It is also submitted that irrespective of legalit y or otherwise of the 2nd marriage, the children born out of the said marriage c annot be deprived of the share of the final settlement dues. However, the questi on of final settlement dues will arise only after retirement of the respondent N o.6 from service on attaining the age of superannuation and payment of the same to the legal heirs only after his death. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, the writ pe tition is disposed with the following directions:- (a) The Respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited shall act in the matte r taking note of the fact that the petitioner No.1 is the legally married wife o f the respondent No.6 and that the children of the respondent No.6 and 7 are als o legal heirs of the respondent No.6; (b) If the petitioner No.1 as the legally married wife of the respon dent No.6 is entitled to any benefit like medical treatment etc. the Respondent Corporation will provide the same to her along with her son i.e. the petitioner No.2; (c) Depending upon the outcome of the divorce suit, now pending in t he Family Court, Guwahati and in the event of occasion arising for distribution of the final settlement dues to the legal heirs, the Respondent Corporation shal l arrange the same in such a way, so that the petitioners and the children of th e respondent No.6 and 7 get their respective shares in equal proportion i.e. 50- 50. Writ petition stands disposed of.