A putative second wife, whose marriage to the deceased is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Rules.

JUDGMENT

S. J. Kathawalla & Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.

1. By the present petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“b) The impugned order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Respondent No. 3 being Exhibit M to the present Writ Petition and the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 dated 27.06.2017 being Exhibit Q to the present Writ Petition be quashed and set aside.

c) The Application of the Petitioner for grant of Family Pension dated 16.05.2008, 19.03.2013, 11.04.2014 and 07.01.2015 be allowed and the Petitioner be granted the Family Pension alongwith the arrears from 15.12.2005.”

2 . Petitioner claims to be the second wife of one Shri. Mahadeo Narayan Tate (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who was working as a peon in the office of the District Collector, Solapur. The deceased had married Smt. Parvatibai (hereinafter referred to as “the first wife”) on 13.06.1962. The Petitioner claims that since the deceased had no children with his first wife, the deceased married the Petitioner on 17.05.1974. Admittedly, the deceased and the Petitioner lived together from April 1974 onwards till the deceased’s death and were known to the public at large in the society as husband and wife. The Petitioner gave birth to a son on 24.08.1976 and two daughters on 12.04.1978 and 06.10.1980 respectively. The deceased died on 09.12.1996, while in service.

3 . Before we advert to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would be apposite to briefly refer to the facts relevant to the present case.

3.1 On 30.07.1987, the deceased endorsed the name of his putative second wife (Petitioner) in his service records to receive family pension upon his death.

3.2 On 23.06.1997, the second wife (Petitioner) and her three children filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 165 of 1997 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, seeking a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In this proceeding, the first wife was impleaded as an opponent. The two parties arrived at a settlement and filed a compromise pursis in the said proceedings. The terms of the settlement were as under:

i. The deceased was entitled to retirement benefits in the nature of gratuity, group insurance and leave salary totaling Rs. 1,21,931/-. Out of this, Rs. 10,000/- would be received by the first wife and Rs. 1,11,931.00 would be received by the putative second wife (Petitioner);

ii. The first wife would be entitled to family pension, and the putative second wife (Petitioner) and her three children would not have any right to claim the family pension or any part thereof. A succession certificate in this regard was to be issued to the first wife;

iii. The first wife would relinquish her right to claim employment in place of the deceased on compassionate grounds and it is the son of the putative second wife (Petitioner) who would be entitled to do so instead;

iv. The first wife would relinquish her right in land admeasuring 6 acres which was purchased by the deceased in the name of his son from his second marriage;

v. The first wife would relinquish her right in the residential house occupied by the putative second wife (Petitioner) and her three children.

3.3 On 17.04.1998, the Civil Court granted the succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased to the first wife on the terms outlined above. The first wife received pension with effect from the date of the death of the deceased i.e., 19.12.1996.

3.4 On 14.12.2005, the first wife expired due to cancer. She had been receiving family pension until her death.

3.5 The putative second wife (Petitioner) had made an Application on 16.05.2008 to the Respondent No. 1 - District Collector, Solapur - seeking the family pension to be paid to her. This was the first application made by the Petitioner in this regard.

3.5.1 On 06.03.2007, the Respondent No. 1 submitted a proposal in this regard to the Auditor General, Mumbai.

3.5.2 On 28.01.2008, the Audi