Lawfully wedded wife of a deceased government servant has claim to a share of pension even if another person was nominated by deceased: High Court of Jharkhand
The lawfully wedded wife will have the right to claim a share of her deceased husband’s pension from the government even if another person was nominated for the entire pension by the deceased. This was held in the judgement passed by a single member bench of the High Court of Jharkhand consisting of Justice Dr S.N. Pathak in the case of Rita Devi v State of Jharkhand [W.P. (S) No. 96 of 2020] pronounced on 10th August 2021. The petitioner, Rita Devi is the first lawfully wedded wife of a deceased government employee who died in harness while working in Bhandra Block, Lohardaga. The petitioner filed representation soon after the deceased man’s death however was not granted the retiral-cum-death benefits owed to her deceased husband. Subsequently respondent no. 4, Lalita Devi who claims to be the second wife of the deceased man was granted the entire retiral benefits and family pension. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner was a widow with no means of income to support herself and that since she was never divorced from her husband, her husband’s marriage to respondent no. 4 was invalid by law. It was further submitted that respondent no. 4 was not legally entitled to retiral benefits of family pension of the deceased man, yet was enjoying both while the lawfully wedded wife had nothing. For this reason the petitioner requested the court for at least 50% of family pension and was willing to let go of the retiral benefits. The case of Rameshwar Devi v. State of Bihar &amp; Other [2000 Supreme Court 202] was cited where the Supreme Court of India held that the right to family pension and retirement benefits of a deceased government who died servant without filing nomination would go to the first wife if she was not divorced and the second wife would not be entitled to any share. However it was pointed out in the immediate case that the deceased man nominated respondent no.4 for the pension and benefits and not the petitioner, whereas in the case cited above the deceased man died without filing any nomination. The court noted that the second wife was entitled to a share on the virtue of being named in the nomination, however the first wife would have a claim nonetheless as she was legally married to the deceased man till his death.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.No. 920 Rita Devi wife of Late Krishna Sahu Resident of Durga Bari Lane Powerganj P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga District Lohardaga Jharkhand. 1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand … PETITIONER 2. Deputy Commissioner Lohardaga. 3. Block Development Officer Lohardaga 4. Lalita Devi Wife of Late Krishna Prasad Sahu Resident of Durga Bari Lane Poerganj P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga District Lohardaga. … … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK Through : Video Conferencing) For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the Respondent No. 4: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi Advocate. 08 10.08.2021 Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey AC to AAG II In view of outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length the matter is being disposed of finally. Heard the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to make fifty percent of the Family Pension to the petitioner who is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee who died in harness while posted as Jan Sewak in Bhandra Block District Lohardaga. Facts of the case in brief as has been delineated in the writ petition is that petitioner’s husband while posted as Jan Sewak in Bhandra Block within the district of Lohardaga died in harness on 13.05.2010. After his death representation was filed by the petitioner on 30.07.2010 before the Deputy Commissioner Lohardaga for payment of death cum retiral benefits but the same has not been paid till date. Petitioner has come to know that one Lalita Devi claiming to be the second wife of the deceased has received entire retiral benefits and is also getting entire family pension. Being aggrieved petitioner knocked door of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 66218 2 which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2019 directing the petitioner to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for recovery of share of the amount from Lalita Devi. Thereafter petitioner approached before the authorities claiming family pension. However even after several representations prayer of the petitioner was not considered regarding payment of family pension and as such she was compelled to knock door of this Court. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly submits that petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee and there is none to look after her and in that view of the matter she is not in a position to file suit for recovery of retiral benefits from the second wife of the deceased employee. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances petitioner confines her prayer for fixation of family pension in her favour to the extent of 50% only. Learned counsel further submits that though second wife of the deceased employee is not entitled for either retiral benefits or the family pension but she is enjoying both this Court may direct the respondents for fixation of at least 50% of the family pension in favour of the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 is being represented by Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi. Learned counsel vociferously argues that name of the respondent no. 4 finds place in the column of nominee in the service excerpts of the deceased employee and as such she has rightly been paid the retiral benefits as well as the entire family pension. There is no illegality or any infirmity and the writ petition merits dismissal. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey AC to learned AAG submits that considering peculiar situation and the settled principles of law both the parties were called for by the respondents but they did not appear and as such no decision could be taken regarding fixation of family pension. Learned counsel further argues that already both the parties had approached before this Court earlier and a direction was given to prefer suit for recovery of retiral benefits etc. This is second round of litigation and as such in view of order passed in earlier writ petition the parties may prefer suit for redressal of their grievance. Be that as it may having heard rival submissions of the parties across the bar this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner merits consideration. Admittedly petitioner is the first wife and the marriage was 3 never declared null and void. Law is well settled that the second wife is not entitled for retiral benefits as well as pension. It has been held in celebrated Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2000 Supreme 202 that right to family pension and death cum retirement gratuity of deceased father Government Servant contracting second marriage while first wife was alive no nomination made for family pension and other benefits the children of second void marriage legitimate and entitled to share family pension and death cum retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage. It has further been held that they would be entitled to family pension only till they attain majority and second wife would not be entitled to anything. In the instant case the second wife is getting benefits of retiral benefits as well as family pension in view of the fact that her name finds place as a nominee in service excerpts of the deceased employee. However name of the first wife does not find mention in the service excerpts of the deceased employee. As per settled principles of law claim of the first wife merits consideration and she is entitled for the retiral benefits as well as the family pension etc. however learned counsel very fairly submits that at this juncture petitioner is claiming for family pension only and that too only 50% amount. In view of fair submission of learned counsel for the petitioner I hereby direct the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 to appear before the Deputy Commissioner Lohardaga on 26.08.2021 at 2:00 p.m. and upon their appearance the Deputy Commissioner Lohardaga after taking consent of the parties shall recommend their cases to the office of the Accountant General Jharkhand for fixation of pension to the extent of 50% each in favour of petitioner and that of the respondent no. 4. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks thereafter. Let it be made clear that no further claim made by the parties shall be entertained. With the aforementioned observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to respondent no. 2. Dr. S.N. Pathak J.) 