The main legal point established is that a widow, as per the compromise decree and legal heir certificate, is entitled to family pension as per Rule 116(6)(q)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and the refusal to consider these documents is malafide and without application of mind.

JUDGMENT :

Y.G. Khobragade, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is finally heard at the admission stage, as the petitioner only prayed for issuance of directions against respondent No.4-District Health Officer, Zillla Parishad, Latur for forwarding proposal in regard to her family pension.

2. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and claimed that she is widow of deceased Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad who was working as District Extension & Media Officer with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Her husband superannuated on 28.02.1995 and died on 08.04.2019. However, her deceased husband had recorded name of his second wife namely Sudharna Gorakhnath Gaikwad being dependent in his service book. The second wife of her husband Sudharna expired on 14.08.2017. But name of the petitioner was not recorded in the service book by her husband being dependent. Therefore the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2019 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Latur and prayed for decree of declaration. However, during pendency of the said suit, her husband died and thereafter a compromise was entered into between her( the petitioner) and sons (from second wife) of her husband on 13.07.2019 (Exh D). In pursuance of the said compromise, on 13.07.2019, a compromise decree, was passed by the Lok Adalat in RCS No. 76/2019 wherein the plaintiff (petitioner herein) is held to be legal wife of late Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad. Thereafter, on 04.11.2019, the petitioner submitted an application with Respondent No.4-District Health Officer and prayed for inclusion of her name being widow of her husband late Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad in his service record being a beneficiary of the family pension. However, on 04.06.2020, the Respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner that her proposal for pensionary benefit cannot be forwarded to the higher authority on the ground that during life time, the deceased employeelate Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad did not enter name of the petitioner in his service record being his wife.

3. According to the petitioner, on 07.01.2021, Legal Heir Certificate was issued by the competent Court i.e. learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in her favour and, therefore, she is beneficiary of the family pension on account of death of husband. After getting legal heir certificate, again she submitted an application on 08.01.2021 with respondent no.4 and requested for inclusion of her name in the service record of her husband late Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad for family pensionary benefits. However, again on 25.02.2021, the Respondent No.4 refused to forward the proposal of the petitioner for family pension to the higher authority. The petitioner further advert that she is legally wedded wife of late Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad. Therefore, as per Rule 116 (6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1982, even if the government employee having more than one widow, the family pension equally to be paid.

Though Smt. Sudharna, second wife of the petitioner's husband, died, the petitioner being the first wife of deceased late Shri Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad, she is entitled for family pension in respect of her late husband. However, the Respondent No.4 arbitrarily refused to forward her proposal for pensionary benefits to the higher authority. Therefore, stating that the action on the part of the respondents is illegal, bad in law, the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned letters and for directions against the Respondent No.4 to forward her proposal for pensionary benefits to the higher authority/Respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed affidavit about service of notice in respect of the Respondent No.2- Accountant General along-with postal report dated 20.09.2022 and Online postal tracking consignment certificate which shows that on 20.