D.Laxmi Bai v. 1. The South Central Railways

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Jayakrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned proceeding No. SCR/P-HYBIOgUSett. /Mech lDSl202l, dt 09lLU202L as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Article L4, 2t of The Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same by directing the Respondent to forthwith release the family pension to the Petitioner herein and to pass..."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioner in suoport of the present writ petition, is as under: 4 The petitioner's husband, Late D' Satyanarayana, retired as Techniciarl-Ilon30'06.2012fromtherespondent-Railwaysand

hadmatrimonialdisputeswithhisfirstwife,Smt.Maniamma. These disputes were settled through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 14'07'2012, which was recorded by the Lok l\dalat through an Award dated 17'08'2012' Under the MOU, Smt. Maniamma was to receive only ?1'000 per month from the pension, while the remaining family pension was to be paidtothepetitionerafterthedeathofthepetitioner'shusband by the ResPondent Authorities' It is further the case of the petitioner that after the petition13r's husband's death on 2t'04'2021' the petitioner submitted representations to Respondent No'2 on 06'07'2021 and 07.07.2021, requesting the release of the family pension enclosilrg all the relevant documents, including the Lok Adalat Award and the MOU. However, Respondent No'2' through the impugned order dated Og.ll.2}2l, directed the petitioner to obtain a declaratory decree from a competent civil court' without proper application of mind, and to implead the first wife' Smt. lvlaniamma, despite the fact that the Lok Adalat Award was alreaoy binding and executable' Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 09.11.2021, the petitioner had filed the 5 present writ petition seeking a direction to Respondent No.2 to release her family pension. The petitioner also seeks interim relief for the immediate payment of the famiry pension pending disposal of the writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: DUOn A. /P- HYB '91 ^ett. {ech. hs ^O21, datedl O9.11.2021 issued o.SCR D i hereunder:- _"Your representation for grant of famiry pension in In this context, you are hereby advised to obtain a "Declaratory Decree" from competent court of Law duly impleading Smt.Manemma, who was in receipt of maintenance grant whire sri D.sathyanarayana was in service. only on submission of the decree famiry pension wiil be authorized to the rightful claimant. hereunder:- - This writ petition is fired seeking to decrare the action of respondents more particurarty -.espo-nGnt No.2 in issuing the impugned proceeding No.SCR/P-HyB/69l/Sett. /Mech.lDs/2021 dated 09.11.202t as iriegar and to consequenuy to set aside the same by directing the respondent to forthwith release the family pension to the petitioner. r'-i 6 l..earned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Lok AC alat Award stand executabl e in terms of the order passed bY erstwhi le Hon'ble Hig hcourt of Andhra Pradesh in the matter ofD r.T lluri atish ch andra U n v Tho ra r Crn the other hand, Ms' Pallavi'.l"ut::9..:o'nsel for resporrdents strongly tJni"not that the imp.ugned order has been passed ut p"i-tuLt and regulations of the Railways and submits tnJ in ih" riiht of the subsistence of rule 7(i)(a)(b), tne resp-onJ"ntt ui" unable to release the oensionary benefits to tn"" p"tii'ner and as suctr prays this &ilil;il;ii1n" i'.np'gned order as appropriate' Itl view of the above submissions' this Court directs both the parties to tar<e appiopriate steps as.contemplated fi;.,; i;"[""impreao tne btnei claimants to the pensionarv benr:fits of the cleceased employee of respondents' c Rule7s(7)(i ) & b Railwav rvices( n ) 3 sextra Rule 75: FamilY 19{i4: - d here under: Pension Scheme for railway servants' ff ;l#Ilfl ]Ji^T:,*",lillii'J""":',:"XJi"i'l3oJ?'1"'I?lE wi,lows in equal shares' (b) On the death of a widow' her share of the family pr:nsion, shall become payable to her eligible child: s I o I N

5. +ppg* of tne oetitioner 7 i) The D.V.C. Proceedings were initiated by the 1't wife against deceased employee, on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal- D.V.S.R.No.2946 ot 2Ot2, dated 17.08.2012 and the said matter was referred to Lok Adalat. ii) The petitioner's husband and 1't wife of the petitioner's husband entered into MOU on 14.07.2O12 and compromised the matter on certain specific terms that the petitioner's husband would pay a sum of Rs.1,5O,OOO/- to the 1't wife towards final settlement of permanent alimony and accordingly, the said amounts were in fact paid by the petitioner's husband to the l=t wife of petitioner's husband. aii) Both the first wife and the petitioner's husband mutually agreed in the said MOU that the 1"t wife is entitled to a sum of only Rs.1,OOO/- from the deceased employee's pension account and even after the death of the employee and remaining pension amount would be paid by the respondent Authorities to the 2nd wife i.e., the petitioner herein. 8 iv) The Lok Adalat Award under Section 21 of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was passed on 17.09.2012 recording the compromise and MOU entered into between the petitioner's husband and his 1't wife. v) The petitioner's husband died on 2L.O4.ZOZL leaving behind the 2nd wife i.e., the petitioner herein and their unmarried differently abled daughter, D.Nageshwari, who are entitled for the family pension of the deceased employee as per the compromise and MOU agreed between the petitioner's husband and his lst wife. vi) fn spite of the representations of the petitioner, dated A6.07.2O2L and 07.O7.2021 requesting the respondent Authorities to release the family pension by enclosing Death Certificate, Service Certificate, Bank Passbook, Lok Adalat Award and MOU, without considering the same, the respondent No.2 had issued the impugned proceedings, dated Og.LL.2O2L, insisting the petitioner to obtain a Declaratory Decree from competent Court for the release of family pension to the petitioner. v 9 vii) The aforesaid Lok Adalat Award passed in DVC S.R.No.2946 of 2012, dated 17.O8.2O!2 was neither called nor considered and had been totalty ignored by the znd respondent herein while issuing the impugned proceedings, dated O9.1L.2OZL and the same is contrary to the view of the Apex Court judgment, which clearly states that a reference made by the Criminal Court and Award passed by the Lok Adalat bench of criminal Unit is an enforceable decree by the Civil Court. viii) As per the Lok Adalat Award, dated 17.O8.2O12 the l't wife of the petitioner's husband had accepted Rs.lr5OrOOO/- as permanent alimony through receipt and Rs.1,OOO/- only towards family pension and the parties to the said award agreed that the balance family pension to be paid to the petitioner herein who is the 2"d wife of the deceased employee. ix) The Railway Services(Pension) Rules, 1993 in fact provide for payment of family pension to the widows of the deceased employee as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents at para No.1O. , / 10 AD rrnoon eh tf t e e tit o itio ner int he r h titionerc on ends as DTavedf r the DC ed for th r n w rt t oetiti n an I e I

6. The le rned De DU olicitor Ge eral n t r o e 1 a t e filed on h tf of DOnd nt Nos. 1 I i) As per Railway Pension Rules' 1993' a legally wedded wife is eligible for grant of family pension' In the present case, the 1"t marriage of the deceased ii) employee i.e., petitioner's husband herein had not been dissolved. iii) The deceased employee Sri D'satyanarayana had addressed a representation' dated 14'12'2OL3 to the Divisiona! Railway Manager, Secunderabad requesting to I I I I t $ , ! l 11 issue PPO by mentioning the name of deceased emptoyee's 1"t wife Smt.Maniamma i.e., 3'd respondent herein though in the employee's declaration and settlement papers, the name of the petitioner is figured, the MOU, dated 14.O7.2OL2 was made without making South Central Railway as a party, but involving only the deceased employee and his znd wife i.e., the 3'd respondent herein as parties to the MOU. When the petitioner filed the present writ petition to release family pension in petitioner's favour in view of the deceased employee having two wives, the impugned proceedings, dated O9.1 L.2O2t had been issued to the petitioner herein, directing the petitioner herein to obtain a "Declaratory Decree" from the competent Court of law, duly impleading the deceased employee's lst wife, who was in receipt of maintenance of grant , while deceased employee late Sri D.Satayanrayana was in service. Solicitor General of India aopearino on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 contends that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as praved for bv the petitioner in the \ a L2 r w r P to be dismissed. 7 T elu om nt 4 ln Dr.Tallurt5 AoexCo urt reoo ed in (2o17) 2 andra Vs. Thora m n N 1 2 a 4 r r N v D.

12. Since the Award was one Passed in a criminal case bY a Lok Adalat bench of the MetroPo litan Unit of the Metropolitan Ses;sions Division of HYderabad, the first incidental and short q uestion is as to whether the said facts would make anY critical difterence and would be sufficient not to deem the Award in qur:stion as a decree of the Civil Court. This question appears to be no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme The facts of e Court in this cited case wNch gave rise to an imPortant question as to the interPretation of Section 21 of the Act are as follows: The appellant therein filed a comPlaint (CC.No.1 216 of 2007) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Court No.1, Ernakulam) against the respondent therein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Magistrate referred the said comPlaint to Ernakulam District Leg al Services Authority for trying the case for seftlement between the parties in the Lok Adalat. On aPpearance of the Parties, an Award was Passe d for payment of the balance amou nt in five equal installments as siipulated therein giving libertY to the aPPellant therein to reco ver the entire balance amount in lumP sum in case of Cefault of PaYment of the said amount as Per the schedule of installments. As the installments were not Paid as settled and as per the Lok Adalat Award, an execution Petiti on in CC.no.1216 of 2007 was filed in the Principal Munsif Court, Ernakulam, r;eeking the execution of the Award. The Judge of the Principal lvtunsif Court dism issed the Petition holding that the Awa rd passed by the Lok Adalat on the reference from the Magistrate cannot be construed as a decree executable bY the Civil Court As9 rieved thereof, the DHr appro ached the High Court of Kerala by way of a writ Petition. The High Cou rt dismissed the writ petition. The Suprem e Court while allowing the Criminal APPeal below directed the and setting aside the orders of the Courts 13 executing Court to restore the execution petition and proceed further in accordance with law, In the said decision, after referring to the provisions of law and the precedents, the position that emerged was summarized as follows: 1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be .a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court. 2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court. 3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature. 4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court. L4.2. On the above analysis, the principles that emerge may be summarized as follows: (1) Since the Act does not make out any distinction between the reference made by a civil Court or a criminal Court, every Award of the Lok Adalat, whether passed on a reFerence made by a civil Court or a criminal Court shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and as such, it is executable. (2) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal Court and the Award was passed by a Lok Adalat Bench of a criminal Unit, yet the Lok Adalat Award is capable oF execution by a civil Court within the said Unit or within the District. t4 "i (3) If such civil Court is not authorized to execute such decree against uny p"'ion or property outside the local its jurisdiction, then the decree may be executed li;ii; ;;";,"" .;;;i"nt .i'ii court to which it is sent on the Iipiiriti". o'f th" d".r"" holder' In the instant case' as the i"^IurJ- *ut passed by a Lok Adalat Bench of the il"inrpoiilin Ggur Services Authority of Hvderabad o',.-itiJt, ine exeiution fetition ought to have been filed #;;-ih; competent civil Court wiihin the Citv civil Court U"it of Hyderabad District' However' since the A schedule i.roruOf" property is situated outside the local limits of ;h;';;ili.i;n'or tne courts within citv civil Court unit ;;;;; tlre said property is situate within-the.local limits of in" irriiJlti"n of the civit Court, Ranga Reddy District' the ought to have filed an appropriate o"li"" IJpii.ution before thl competent civil Court within the Citv li,iir corrt unit of Hvolraoaa District seeking transfer of the decree to a compeient civil court within Ranga Reddy DisErict. - -HorO". 8 A v r r f n r e k Cri mi al Unit v execution as anenforceable decree vt ecivil Cou Adalat ward rs DA ble of n h 7 7 o n e racted a e) cle rlv Dro ide thatt ef mil v nsa n r n n h 15 cleath of a wiclow, her share of the family oension, would be oavable to her eliqible child.

10. The order impugned- dated 09.11.2021 Dassed by the 2nd resoonctent herein totallv iqnorecl, the law laicl down bv the Apex court as well as Rule 75(7)(ar a & b of the Railwav Services(Pension) Rules- 1993 and also the MOU' clatect 14.O7.2O12 recorded vide Award under Section 21 of Leqal services Authoritv Act. 1987. Dassed on 17.08.2O12. The saicl MOU clearlv indicates that both the oarties haCl enterect into an agreement' dated 14.O7.2O12 ancl hact agreect to the terms and conditions therein and that the cteceasecl emplovee had oaid an amount of RS,1.SO,OOO to the dleceased employee's 1st wife, which she hact also receivecl on 17.O8.2O12. At oara No.5 of the said MOU, clatecl 14.O7.2O12. it is soecificallv aoreed that the cteceasecl employee woulct undertake to mention the name of cleceasect emoloyee's 1st wife Smt. G.Maniamma party. as the First pafty in the pension account an the Railwav Department to the extent of Rs.1'ooo'- only. It was further aoreeCl that even after the death of the cleceasecl emoloyee, the South Central Railwav would oay 16 n t id bv the Ra ilwav authorities the etitio er alone. Th uoh oetitioner's

24.o'4.20 2L. oetitioner husb and d n 7 1 n 7 n c Servi ce Certifi cate ndBank Pass emolovee alono with Lok Adalat Award' dated 17'O8'2O12' kof the ecea ed e 2 L 1 M s t o r r t 87 d same wa s rei cted bv theim uqned ord r ndent ass ed unilater llv o21of the 2nd w I m bv the D rns ooo of tion r's case. 1 m

09. 11.20 1 issu edbvthe 2nd resDondent i con rv to the 2 d A Leoal A w MO 1 h d r r 1 1 r 7 7 17 than one

12. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the rearned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner and rearned Deputy Solicitor General of fndia, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l & 2. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. d) The contents of the petitioner,s representations, dated 06,07-2025 & 07.O7.2025 to the respondents. e) The contents of the impugned proceedings vide No.SCR/P-HYBl 691/Sett ./Mech./DS/ 2021-, dated 09'11.2021- issued by the znd respondent to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) f) The interim orders of this court, dated z2.tr.2oz2 passed in the present w.p.No.4tr44 0l 2022 (referred to and extracted above) = !r, I I 18 g) R.ule 75(7)(i) a & b of the Railwav services(Pension) Rules, 1993 (referred to and extracted above) e) 1'he judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2Ot-,t1 2 ALT 545, in Dr.Talluri Satish Chandra Vs' Thoram Venkteshwara Rao, dated 05.O1'2017 (referred to and extracted above) f) MOU, dated L4.O7.2OLZ entered between the deceased employee and 1"t wife of the deceased employee g) Lok Adalat Award, dated 17.08.2012 passed under Section 2L of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 ' h) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.5 to 11 of the Present order. No. l],- ! : ; i I . I I I I I I I I I I I i i i i 19 as to costs. ( { 20 Miscellaneous Petitions' if any, Pending in this Writ Petition, sha I stand closed' //TRUE COPY// I SWAiTY SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal)

1. The General Manager, South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, T.S.

2. The Divisional Personnel Officer Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhavan, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

3. 11 L.R. Copies. 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

5. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

6. One CC to SRI CH.JAYAKRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF |NDIA [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies -l c.c. ton.q,Y- HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 '[ FIE t o Q * 1 5 PA R 2026 * ,,., TJ ! ORDER WP.No.41144 ot 2022 ALLOWING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. ,48 %