SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Shivaji Pandey, J.
Bibi Rashida Khatoon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar and Others – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20209 of 2016
Decided On : 28-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sheoshankar Prasad, Mr. Satendra Kumar Jha, Advocate

Headnote:

Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976 – Rule 23 – Family Pension – Entitlement – Petitioner is second wife of deceased employee – When first wife has already died, question of deprivation of family pension to petitioner does not arise as on date of death of employee petitioner was only wife of her husband – Respondents directed to make payment of family pension including arrears of amount to petitioner within a period of four weeks. (Paras 4 and 5)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar.

2. In the present case, issue has been raised with regard to entitlement of family pension. The petitioner was married to Md. Sultan during the lifetime of his first wife namely, Bibi Kusum. From the record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner superannuated from the service on 30.06.1983 and he entered into the marriage with the petitioner on 19.01.1984. Admittedly, the second marriage was solemnized after superannuation of Md. Sultan. Rule-23 of the Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, provides and prescribes that during the lifetime of first wife, the employee would not enter into the second marriage but, this Rule would apply so long he is in service, after superannuation, he ceased to be a Government servant, save and except, his governance for pension under the Bihar Pension Rules.

3. From the record, it appears that first wife of Md. Sultan died on 05.11.2003 and Md. Sultan died on 05.09.2005, so during the lifetime of husband, the first wife died. It has been complaint that the petitioner has been deprived of family pension on the plea that as the first wife is not alive, the petitioner being second wife of Md. Sultan, is not entitled to family pension placing reliance on the Resolution No. 1549 dated 24.06.2011.

4. As the husband of the petitioner had died in the year 2005 and this Resolution has come into force in the year 2011 so, it cannot be given retrospectively. Even presuming that it is applicable, in that circumstance also, she cannot be deprived of family pension as Clause-3 of the aforesaid Resolution provides, in the event of first wife is alive, family pension will be divided 50-50. When first wife has already died, the question of deprivation of family pension to the petitioner does not arise as on the date of death of Md. Sultan the petitioner was the only wife of her husband.

5. In such view of the matter, this Court gives direction to the respondents to make payment of family pension including the arrears of amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production / receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top