Smt. Pradnyashila Wd/O Ramesh ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11061 Bom

                                                1                     wp857.20.odt


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                     WRIT PETITION NO.857/2020

    Smt. Pradnyashila wd/o Ramesh Ghate,
    aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired,
    r/o At House No. 106-B, Medical Road,
    Behind Isolation Hospital, Imamwada,
    Nagpur-03                          .....PETITIONER

                            ...V E R S U S...

1. The State of Maharashtra through
   its Secretary, Department of Education,
   Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. Accountant General (A and E)-II,
   through its Chief Officer, Nagpur.

3. Joint Director of Education,
   Civil Lines, Nagpur.

4. Education Officer (Primary),
   Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
   Provident Fund Pathak,
   Primary Education Department,
   Jublee High School Parisar, Vastigruh
   Imarat, Kasturba Road, Chandrapur. ...RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. V. Lokhande, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. N. P. Mehta, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. G.G. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED :- 19.10.2022 2 wp857.20.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by this petition, has sought a relief

of direction to be issued to the respondents for grant of

family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of

Late Ramesh Wamanrao Ghate (the deceased). For grant of

the relief, as claimed by the petitioner, it is necessary that the

petitioner has been declared to be the person, who is wife of

the Government servant and, accordingly, has also been

nominated to be the person, to whom the family pension be

paid. However, from the communication dated 05.01.2019,

which is forming part of the record, it becomes clear that the

deceased Ramesh, during his lifetime and service, has

disowned the petitioner as his wife by stating that there was

dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner and that the

petitioner was living separately and was leading an

independent existence. The deceased Government servant

has even gone further. In none of the requisite forms, relating 3 wp857.20.odt

to the pension case of the Government servant, like form-1,

form-3, form-5 and form 42-A, has the deceased Government

servant shown the petitioner as a nominee, she being the wife

and thus entitled to receive the benefit of family pension. On

the contrary, the deceased Government servant has

nominated in the forms, his children such as, Madhyama and

Pallavi. The record of the pension case of the deceased

Government servant, as reflected in the communication dated

05.01.2109, shows that on that day i.e. on 05.01.2019,

Madhyama and Pallavi had crossed the age of 24 years and

were also married. Therefore, the authorities found that both

the daughters of the deceased Government servant were not

eligible to receive any family pension.

3. Such being the facts of the present case, we do not

find that the petitioner would be entitled to receive any

family pension. If at all the petitioner wishes to prove her

entitlement to receive the family pension, the petitioner

would have to first obtain a declaration from the Civil Court

of competent jurisdiction that she was the legally wedded 4 wp857.20.odt

wife of the deceased Government servant, that there was no

dissolution of their marriage, that their marriage was

subsisting on the date of death of the deceased Government

servant and that the Government servant had not disowned

her, in any manner. It is only upon a declaration of such a

status vis-a-vis the deceased Government servant, the

petitioner may perhaps stake a claim for receiving the family

pension, as per the rules.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon

the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Kamalbai

w/o Venkatrao Nipanikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1

wherein the Full Bench held that the family pension can be

claimed by a widow, who is legally wedded wife of the

deceased employee and that the second wife, if not legally

wedded wife, cannot be found to be entitled for receiving the

family pension.

5. This is exactly what we have already held in this

case. Unless and until the petitioner obtains a decree of

1 2019 (3) Mh. L. J. 921 5 wp857.20.odt

declaration in her favour, granted by the Civil Court of

competent jurisdiction, disclosing the nature of relationship

with the Government servant in the manner stated above, the

petitioner would not be able to successfully lay her claim to

the family pension.

6. The petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed. It is

accordingly dismissed without costs.

Rule is discharged.

(Anil L. Pansare, J.) (Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

kahale

Digitally signed byYOGESH ARVIND KAHALE Signing Date:21.10.2022 14:52