Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 899
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Promila Devi. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. …Respondents.
C.W.P. (T) No. 7328 of 2008.
Decided on 3rd March, 2011.
For the petitioner.:Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.
For respondents No. 1 to 4.:Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
For respondent No. 5.:Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate vice Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to family pension for the second wife is determined by the relevant pension rules, and in this case, the second wife was not entitled to family pension.
Headnote:
Family Pension - Second Wife - Entitlement to Family Pension
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, as the second wife of a retired police officer, sought entitlement to family pension for herself, but the pension was sanctioned only for the children from the first and second marriages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being the second wife, was not entitled to any family pension, and only her children were entitled to 50% of the family pension. The court dismissed the petition as it found no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Issues: Entitlement of the second wife to family pension and apportionment of family pension between the children from different marriages.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal provision discussed by the court was the entitlement of the second wife to family pension. The court interpreted the relevant pension rules and found that the petitioner, as the second wife, was not entitled to family pension, and only her children were eligible for a share of the pension.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner, as the second wife, was not entitled to family pension, and the apportionment of the family pension between the children was in accordance with the law.
Rajiv Sharma, J
Petitioner’s husband was enrolled in the Police Department in the year 1960. He retired on 11.03.1990. He has contracted two marriages. First marriage was solemnized with Hima Devi and thereafter, he solemnized his second marriage as per the averments contained in the petition with the petitioner.
2. From the wedlock of Tek Chand and Smt. Hima Devi, a daughter, namely, Jayoti was born, whereas from the wedlock of Tek Chand and Smt. Promila Devi, three children, namely Vijay Kumar, Arun Kumar and Monika were born. According to the service record, Hima Devi has been shown as first wife of Shri Tek Chand and the petitioner has been shown as second wife. The pension papers were processed. The respondents have sanctioned 50% of the family pension in favour of Jyoti and 50% of the pension was payable as under:
“Shri Vijay Kumar, S/o Sh. Tek Chand upto 9.5.95 or the date he starts earning his livelihood whichever is earlier and thereafter to Sh. Arun Kumar upto 2.2.99 or the date he starts earning his livelihood whichever is earlier. Thereafter, Kumari Moniki upto 15.4.2003 or marriage or the date she starts earning her livelihood whichever is earlier.”
3. There is no illegality in Annexure R-2. Petitioner being the second wife, was not entitled to any family pension. Only her children were entitled to 50% of the family pension.
4. Ms. Archana Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate how Annexure R-II is bad in law. The family pension has been correctly apportioned between Jyoti and children of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
