ups_00388 — If a postal employee (Ex-serviceman) joined in the postal service after his release from Military service, he is entitled to nominate his wedded wife as his family pensioner. In the present case, the Applicant, an Ex-serviceman who joined Postal Service, even though names one Mrs. Lohitha as his wedded wife and she was taken care of by his brother when he was serving in Military, no opportunity was given by the Respondents to the Applicant and his wife to state their position and also no legally

UPS

If a postal employee (Ex-serviceman) joined in the postal service after his release from Military service, he is entitled to nominate his wedded wife as his family pensioner. In the present case, the Applicant, an Ex-serviceman who joined Postal Service, even though names one Mrs. Lohitha as his wedded wife and she was taken care of by his brother when he was serving in Military, no opportunity was given by the Respondents to the Applicant and his wife to state their position and also no legally acceptable inquiry was made by Respondents to state that Mrs. Lohitha is his brother's wife. Hence the concerned Postal authorities should include Mrs. Lohitha as his legally wedded wife till it is proved otherwise, to nominate her as his family pensioner — This chunk is discussing a case involving an ex-serviceman, the Applicant, who joined the postal service after his release from military service. He named Mrs. Lohitha as his legally wedded wife in h... — Facts: The Applicant, an Ex-serviceman, on release from Military service joined as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) in Arattupuzha, North Branch Post Office on 21-6-1981. He was promoted as Postal Assistant on 22-12-1988 and retired from service on 31-5-2006. His marital status and other family particulars are entered in his service book when he joined Postal Department. He submitted his pension papers on retirement. The Postal department authorities asked him to produce his original marriage certificate from local administration. As it will take time to get his marriage certificate final from Arattupuzha Panchayat Office, because of which his settlement dues will be delayed, he was advised to submit his pension papers showing him as unmarried. Accordingly, he did so. His marriage certificate was obtained from Arattupuzha Gram Panchayat and pursued to indicate Smt. Lohitha as his wife in the service records for getting family Pension. Superintendent of Post office, Mavelikkara after pursuasion issued corrigendum facilitating family pension to his wife after his death. However, shortly thereafter the impugned communication was issued based on fact-finding report from the pension sanctioning authority withdrawing nomination of Smt. Lohitha as a Family Pensioner. This is stated due to rivalry between two employees' unions, in one of which the Applicant is a member. Hence he filed this OA for a declaration that Smt. Lohitha is his wife and that the unilateral decision of deleting the name of Smt. Lohitha for getting family pension is incorrect and he may be paid costs for this litigation by Respondents. The Respondents demanded to produce his marriage certificate as the local enquiries made by Postal Inspector prove that Mrs. Lohitha is the wife of his brother, Shri Dharmapalan which is not proved reliably and legally by the Respondents by certificate of marriage or by a solemn statement by any member of that family. The Applicant does state that Polyandry was in vogue in that locality. As he was in Military, his elder brother was looking after the family and that practice in vogue is stated in an inarticulate manner. The bondage of the Applicant and his elder brother is strong that the Applicant entrusted his looking after his wife to his brother when he was away in Military service. In the above circumstances and in view of the express and clear available documents, prima facie, it appears that the Applicant has proved that he is married to Smt. Lohitha. The other averments made by the Respondents still remain in the realm of speculation only, without legally acceptable foundations. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the Respondents were not justified in cancelling the order of grant of family pension without any legally valid proof that Dharmapalan (Applicant's brother) had married Lohitha. Respondents state that the Inspector of Posts had summoned the Applicant and other people for obtaining evidence regarding marital status of the Applicant but none turned up in the enquiry. It appears that the Respondents thereafter jumped into the conclusion that the Applicant is guilty of marrying the wife of another during subsistence of their marriage. Respondents seems to have ignored the other possibilities including the possibility that after marriage, consensual ' Polyandry" was practised in the family without disrupting the marital bondage". In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant [ 2010 (9) SCC 209 ], it was held by Apex Court that "if a man and woman are living together in the same roof and cohabiting, there will be presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate". It was further held:

UPS

If a postal employee (Ex-serviceman) joined in the postal service after his release from Military service, he is entitled to nominate his wedded wife as his family pensioner. In the present case, the Applicant, an Ex-serviceman who joined Postal Service, even though names one Mrs. Lohitha as his wedded wife and she was taken care of by his brother when he was serving in Military, no opportunity was given by the Respondents to the Applicant and his wife to state their position and also no legally acceptable inquiry was made by Respondents to state that Mrs. Lohitha is his brother's wife. Hence the concerned Postal authorities should include Mrs. Lohitha as his legally wedded wife till it is proved otherwise, to nominate her as his family pensioner — This chunk is discussing a case involving an ex-serviceman, the Applicant, who joined the postal service after his release from military service. He named Mrs. Lohitha as his legally wedded wife in h... — Facts: The Applicant, an Ex-serviceman, on release from Military service joined as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) in Arattupuzha, North Branch Post Office on 21-6-1981. He was promoted as Postal Assistant on 22-12-1988 and retired from service on 31-5-2006. His marital status and other family particulars are entered in his service book when he joined Postal Department. He submitted his pension papers on retirement. The Postal department authorities asked him to produce his original marriage certificate from local administration. As it will take time to get his marriage certificate final from Arattupuzha Panchayat Office, because of which his settlement dues will be delayed, he was advised to submit his pension papers showing him as unmarried. Accordingly, he did so. His marriage certificate was obtained from Arattupuzha Gram Panchayat and pursued to indicate Smt. Lohitha as his wife in the service records for getting family Pension. Superintendent of Post office, Mavelikkara after pursuasion issued corrigendum facilitating family pension to his wife after his death. However, shortly thereafter the impugned communication was issued based on fact-finding report from the pension sanctioning authority withdrawing nomination of Smt. Lohitha as a Family Pensioner. This is stated due to rivalry between two employees' unions, in one of which the Applicant is a member. Hence he filed this OA for a declaration that Smt. Lohitha is his wife and that the unilateral decision of deleting the name of Smt. Lohitha for getting family pension is incorrect and he may be paid costs for this litigation by Respondents. The Respondents demanded to produce his marriage certificate as the local enquiries made by Postal Inspector prove that Mrs. Lohitha is the wife of his brother, Shri Dharmapalan which is not proved reliably and legally by the Respondents by certificate of marriage or by a solemn statement by any member of that family. The Applicant does state that Polyandry was in vogue in that locality. As he was in Military, his elder brother was looking after the family and that practice in vogue is stated in an inarticulate manner. The bondage of the Applicant and his elder brother is strong that the Applicant entrusted his looking after his wife to his brother when he was away in Military service. In the above circumstances and in view of the express and clear available documents, prima facie, it appears that the Applicant has proved that he is married to Smt. Lohitha. The other averments made by the Respondents still remain in the realm of speculation only, without legally acceptable foundations. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the Respondents were not justified in cancelling the order of grant of family pension without any legally valid proof that Dharmapalan (Applicant's brother) had married Lohitha. Respondents state that the Inspector of Posts had summoned the Applicant and other people for obtaining evidence regarding marital status of the Applicant but none turned up in the enquiry. It appears that the Respondents thereafter jumped into the conclusion that the Applicant is guilty of marrying the wife of another during subsistence of their marriage. Respondents seems to have ignored the other possibilities including the possibility that after marriage, consensual ' Polyandry" was practised in the family without disrupting the marital bondage". In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant [ 2010 (9) SCC 209 ], it was held by Apex Court that "if a man and woman are living together in the same roof and cohabiting, there will be presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate". It was further held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text