The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that if there are two widows the nominee must share the pension equally to the other widow. Indeed, Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Rules is a beneficiary provision in favour of the woman with whom the government employee comes in contact during the subsistence of the first marriage. The provision is, therefore, required to be construed liberally to achieve its very object of the grant of family pension after the death of a government employee, to the extent reasonably possible to make available to both the wives, the family pension.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner is the first wife of late Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, employed as a Revenue Officer and they were blessed with three daughters. The said Baya Reddy retired from the service after attaining the age of superannuation and leaving behind the Petitioner as his legal heir. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached respondent No.2 on numerous occasions for a grant of the family pension. The Petitioner issued the legal notice to issue a family pension in her favor. Furthermore, the present writ petitioner is filed on the ground that Petitioner is the first wife of said Baya Reddy and there is no marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No.7.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the nominee shall divide the pension equally with the other widow in the event that there are two widows. In fact, the beneficiary provision in Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Rules is in favor of the woman the government employee interacts with while the first marriage is still continuing. Consequently, the clause must be read broadly in order to accomplish its primary goal of providing a family pension upon the death of a government employee, and to the greatest extent practicable, to provide the family pension to both wives.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Badshah v. Urmilla Badshah Godse.
The court furthermore observed that the provision of maintenance would fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, a drift in the approach from “adversarial” litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.
The court noted that there exists severe dispute regarding the marital status of the petitioner with late Baya Reddy. The same can’t be decided by way of filling a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no merit in the writ petition.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Kondreddi Ramakrishnamma V. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.4329 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao
Advocates for the Respondents: GP for Services-I; Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned standing counsel and Sri K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
