Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3710
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 33127 OF 2017
A surviving second spouse is entitled to family pension benefits if the marriage is valid under personal law and the employer was previously notified of the marital status, even in the absence of a formal nomination or prior departmental permission for the remarriage by a retired employee.
Headnote:(A) Pension Regulations - Entitlement to family pension - Second spouse of a deceased retired government employee - Legal validity of marriage under personal law - Submission of annual verification documents explicitly naming the spouse serves as sufficient notification to the employer - Absence of formal nomination does not extinguish the legal right of a surviving spouse to claim pensionary benefits where evidence of marriage exists. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Service Law - Requirements for second marriage - Applicability of service conduct rules regarding prior permission - Such requirements are inapplicable to a retired government servant - Validity of marriage under personal law prevails over departmental procedural objections. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner requested a family pension as the surviving spouse of a deceased retired employee. The authorities rejected her claim on the basis that she was not formally nominated as a beneficiary for the pension and that the employee had not obtained departmental permission for the second marriage as per service conduct guidelines. The petitioner contended that her marriage was legally valid under personal law, the first marriage had dissolved due to the death of the prior spouse, and the employer had been notified of her status through annual verification certificates submitted by the deceased employee before his death.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the rejection of the pension application was based on overly technical grounds that disregarded the evidence of the marital relationship submitted to the department. It held that the provision of annual verification reports served as substantial compliance with notification requirements. Furthermore, the court noted that the regulation requiring prior permission for marriage does not apply to a person who has already retired, and the survival of a legal spouse entitles them to the pension benefits.
Issues: The primary issues were whether a second wife is entitled to family pension benefits in the absence of a formal nomination and whether the lack of prior departmental permission for a second marriage precludes such a claim by a retired employee.
Ratio Decidendi: A spouse whose marriage is valid under personal law is entitled to receive family pension benefits. Substantial compliance, such as the inclusion of a spouse’s name in official annual verification records, satisfies the requirement for disclosure to the authorities. Technical omissions, like the absence of a specific nomination form, cannot override the legitimate right of a spouse to support, particularly when the employer had notice of the marital status.
Result: Petition allowed; the authorities were directed to process the pension claim and disburse the accrued arrears.
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to be the second wife of late Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan, who retired on 31.07.2007 voluntarily. Following the death of his first wife on 22.11.2009, Ismail Ali Khan married petitioner on 09.05.2013 under Muslim law. During their marriage, the deceased pensioner submitted annual verification certificates dated 05.11.2013 and 09.12.2015 to the 4th respondent, explicitly revising the details of his spouse to include petitioner’s name and their marriage date. These documents are presented as evidence that the deceased employee informed the authorities of his second marriage during his lifetime.
While so, Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan passed away on 29.01.2017. Therefore, petitioner, as the surviving spouse and legal heir, applied for family pension on 18.05.2017, submitting all relevant documents and notarized affidavits from family members who raised no objection to petitioner receiving pension. She further submitted prescribed forms, bank account details and additional representations on 14.07.2017 and 24.07.2017. Despite these efforts, the 3rd respondent through letter dated 10.08.2017 and the 2nd respondent through letter dated 28.08.2017 rejected her claim, stating that no nomination was made during the deceased’s lifetime for the petitioner as a second wife to receive the pension. They also cited the absence of departmental permission for the second marriage under the AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Petitioner challenges these rejections, emphasizing that Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the APRPS Rules, 1980, provides for family pension to be shared equally among multiple widows, which is not applicable here as the first wife had passed away. It is argued that Rule 25 of the AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires prior permission for a second marriage, is irrelevant as her marriage occurred after the first wife’s death and was permissible under Muslim personal law. She highlights that Section 255 of Mohammedan Law permits a Muslim man to have upto four wives and that her marriage was valid under these provisions.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri G. Seena Kumar relying on the judgments in Rukhia Banu v. Commissioner and Director of Agriculture , Hyderabad12013 (6) ALD 636 and Shaik Jani Begum v. Shaik Sira Junnisa Begum @ Surya Kumari 22017 (1) ALD 88 submits that second wife is entitled to family pension and other benefits, provided marriage was valid and pensioner had submitted relevant details during their lifetime. In this case, deceased’s annual verification certificates submitted in 2013 and 2015, constitute sufficient notification to the authorities about his second marriage and family members had also accepted her entitlement to pension and that respondents’ refusal to process her claim contradicts the evidence on record. According to learned counsel, the 1980 Rules do not prohibit a second wife from receiving family pension, particularly in cases where the first wife is deceased.
3. Respondents countered the case of petitioner stating that the latter submitted Application dated 26.05.2017 to the 2nd respondent for release of family pension which was forwarded to the 3rd respondent seeking clarification and instructions through letter dated 02.06.2017 and letter dated 06.06.2017. It was noted that Late Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan, Superintendent retired voluntarily on 31.07.2007 and he had not submitted any declaration or nomination regarding his remarriage to the 2nd respondent during his lifetime. Hence, the 3rd respondent issued letter dated 10.08.2017 informing the 2nd respondent that as per Rule 49 of the 1980 Rules, every Government servant must provide a nomination specifying the spouse's name for pensionary benefits. The representation dated 09.01.2017 made by the deceased pensioner to the 4th respondent only pertained the death benefits of his first wife, who expired on 22.11.2009 but he had not declared his second marriage during his lifetime, nor was it entered i
