Jharkhand High Court
Rita Devi vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 96 of 2020
Rita Devi, wife of Late Krishna Sahu, Resident of - Durga Bari Lane,
Powerganj, P.O. and P.S. - Lohardaga, District - Lohardaga, Jharkhand.
... PETITIONER
Vs.
1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
2. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga.
3. Block Development Officer, Lohardaga
4. Lalita Devi, Wife of Late Krishna Prasad Sahu, Resident of - Durga Bari
Lane, Poerganj, P.O. and P.S. - Lohardaga, District - Lohardaga.
... ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG-II
For the Respondent No. 4: Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate.
08/10.08.2021 In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up
through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no
objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video
Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity
and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon
the respondents to make fifty percent of the Family Pension to the petitioner
who is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee who died in
harness while posted as Jan Sewak in Bhandra Block, District Lohardaga.
4. Facts
of the case in brief as has been delineated in the writ petition is
that petitioner's husband while posted as Jan Sewak in Bhandra Block, within
the district of Lohardaga, died in harness on 13.05.2010. After his death,
representation was filed by the petitioner on 30.07.2010 before the Deputy
Commissioner, Lohardaga for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits but the
same has not been paid till date. Petitioner has come to know that one Lalita
Devi (respondent no. 4) claiming to be the second wife of the deceased, has
received entire retiral benefits and is also getting entire family pension. Being
aggrieved, petitioner knocked door of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6620 of 2018,
RC
which was heard and disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2019, directing the
petitioner to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for
recovery of share of the amount from Lalita Devi. Thereafter, petitioner
approached before the authorities claiming family pension. However, even after
several representations, prayer of the petitioner was not considered regarding
payment of family pension and as such she was compelled to knock door of
this Court.
5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
very fairly submits that petitioner is the widow of the deceased - employee and
there is none to look after her and in that view of the matter, she is not in a
position to file suit for recovery of retiral benefits from the second wife of the
deceased - employee. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances
petitioner confines her prayer for fixation of family pension in her favour to the
extent of 50% only. Learned counsel further submits that though second wife of
the deceased - employee is not entitled for either retiral benefits or the family
pension but she is enjoying both, this Court may direct the respondents for
fixation of at least 50% of the family pension in favour of the petitioner.
6. Respondent no. 4 is being represented by Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi.
Learned counsel vociferously argues that name of the respondent no. 4 finds
place in the column of nominee in the service excerpts of the deceased
employee and as such, she has rightly been paid the retiral benefits as well as
the entire family pension. There is no illegality or any infirmity and the writ
petition merits dismissal.
7. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, AC to learned AAG submits that
considering peculiar situation and the settled principles of law, both the parties
were called for by the respondents but they did not appear and as such no
decision could be taken regarding fixation of family pension. Learned counsel
further argues that already both the parties had approached before this Court
earlier and a direction was given to prefer suit for recovery of retiral benefits
etc. This is second round of litigation and as such, in view of order passed in
earlier writ petition, the parties may prefer suit for redressal of their grievance.
8. Be that as it may, having heard rival submissions of the parties across
the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of the petitioner merits
consideration. Admittedly petitioner is the first wife and the marriage was
RC
never declared null and void. Law is well settled that the second wife is not
entitled for retiral benefits as well as pension. It has been held in celebrated
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State
of Bihar & Others reported in 2000 Supreme (SC) 202 that right to family
pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of deceased father-Government
Servant contracting second marriage while first wife was alive, no nomination
made for family pension and other benefits, the children of second void
marriage legitimate and entitled to share family pension and death-cum-
retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage. It has further
been held that they would be entitled to family pension only till they attain
majority and second wife would not be entitled to anything.
9. In the instant case, the second wife is getting benefits of retiral benefits
as well as family pension in view of the fact that her name finds place as a
nominee in service excerpts of the deceased - employee. However, name of the
first wife does not find mention in the service excerpts of the deceased
employee. As per settled principles of law, claim of the first wife merits
consideration and she is entitled for the retiral benefits as well as the family
pension etc. however, learned counsel very fairly submits that at this juncture
petitioner is claiming for family pension only and that too only 50% amount.
10. In view of fair submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I,
hereby direct the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 to appear before the
Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga on 26.08.2021 at 2:00 p.m. and upon their
appearance, the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, after taking consent of the
parties, shall recommend their cases to the office of the Accountant General,
Jharkhand for fixation of pension to the extent of 50% each in favour of
petitioner and that of the respondent no. 4. The entire exercise shall be
completed within a period of four weeks thereafter. Let it be made clear that no
further claim made by the parties shall be entertained.
11. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this order be given to respondent no. 2.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC
