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

2022 Supreme(All) 901

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt. Vimla Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others – Respondents
Writ -A No. 14003 of 2022
Decided on : 15-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rama Yadav, Tripurari Pal

Headnote:

Family Pension - Entitlement of Second Wife - U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Rule 3, Rule 6, Rule 7, Section 4, Section 5, Section 11, Section 29 - The judgment discusses the entitlement of the second wife to family pension under the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. It interprets the definition of 'family' and the provisions related to nomination and entitlement to family pension. The court concludes that the second wife, in this case, is not entitled to family pension as the marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, and she does not fall within the definition of 'family' as per the rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be the second wife of a deceased government servant, sought family pension and compassionate appointment. The District Basic Education Officer directed the stoppage of family pension and recovery of the amount paid. The petitioner challenged these orders.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the second marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the petitioner was not entitled to family pension or compassionate appointment. It also ruled that the amount already disbursed to the petitioner should not be recovered.

Issues: (1) Entitlement of the second wife to family pension and compassionate appointment. (2) Recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The second wife, not being a member of the deceased officer's family, is not entitled to family pension as per the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The marriage being void under the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner has no legal right to claim family pension or compassionate appointment.

Final Decision: The impugned orders directing stoppage of family pension and recovery against the petitioner were set aside. The family pension was directed to be drawn in the name of the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and the amount already disbursed to the petitioner was not to be recovered.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.

2. Considering the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed the notice upon the Respondent No.5 is being dispensed with.

3. The writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No.3, District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, whereby and whereunder a direction has been issued to the Respondent No.4, the Finance & Account Officer, Basic Education District Kaushambi, to stop the payment of family pension to the petitioner and calculate the payment of Fund, Group Insurance and other benefits already paid for its recovery from the petitioner as also the consequential order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No.4, Finance & Account Officer, Basic Education, Kaushambi, whereby the payment of the family pension has been stopped.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the admitted facts as set out in the writ petition and in the impugned order the writ petition may be decided on merits. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the above proposition, accordingly the Court proceeds to decide the writ petition at the admission stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

5. The facts shorn of necessary details necessary for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant writ petition briefly stated are that the writ petitioner claims to be the second wife of late Manoj Kumar, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Janta Junior High School, Faridpur (Audhan) Newada District Kaushambi, The institution is an aided institution run by a private management. The said Manoj Kumar is stated to have died-in-harness on 29.09.2017 leaving behind his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi, two daughters and two sons as well as old age parents. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the first wife of the late Manoj Kumar namely Smt. Pushpa Devi is insane since last more than 17 years and the petitioner who happens to be the real younger sister of Smt. Pushpa Devi was got married to the said Manoj Kumar by the father of the petitioner who is stated to have consented to the marriage. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the service book of late Manoj Kumar the name of the petitioner and four children have been mentioned as nominee and after the death of Manoj Kumar the family pension was being paid to the petitioner since July, 2019. It is also the case of the petitioner that she is well educated with qualification of M.A. and B. Ed. to her credit and has also qualified TET Examination. The petitioner is stated to have claimed compassionate appointment on the death of Manoj Kumar the deceased Assistant Teacher under the Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974, as a dependent of the said Manoj Kumar. When no orders were being passed on the said application the petitioner is stated to have approached this Court by means of Writ (A) No.3854 of 2021 (Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & others) which writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2021 with a direction to the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi to consider the claim of the petitioner and take a decision thereon within four months. The Respondent No.3, the District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi in compliance of the order dated 21.06.2021 passed in Writ (A) No.3854 of 2021 has passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 directing the stoppage of the payment of family pension to the petitioner and also directed for the recovery of the amount paid by way of Fund, Group Insurance and other benefits. The Respondent No.4, the Finance & Account Officer, Kaushambi, has proceed to pass the consequential order dated 29.03.2022. Both the orders dated 25.03.2022 and 29.03.2022 are under challenge in the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders principally on the following grounds:-

The impugned orders are ex-facie illegal and against th

                      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