Jharkhand High Court
Gyanti Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 8 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 3128 of 2021
Gyanti Singh ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Home Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S. Jaganathpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O+P.S.-
Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum.
... ... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
------
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C-IV
----------
-----------
03/ 08.09.2021 Petitioner has knocked the door of this Court with prayer for quashing
the order dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure-2) passed by the Senior Superintendent of
Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur by which petitioner has been deprived of family
pension and other monetary benefits. Further prayer has been made for appointment
of minor son of late Vijay Shankar Singh on the post of Bal Arakshi.
2. The Case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Petitioner is the
second wife of late Vijay Shankar Singh who died on 07.09.2020 while working on
the post of Ayudh Arakshi Nirikshak, Ayudh Shakha, Police Kendra, Jamshedpur. The
name of the petitioner finds place in the service book on her late husband. The
deceased husband while working as Ayudh Arakshi Nirikshak, Ayudh Shakha, Police
Kendra, Jamshedpur died in harness on 07.09.2020 leaving behind two wives,
namely, Yashoda Devi (first wife) and Gyanti Devi (second wife), one son namely,
Yuvraj Singh (aged 12 years), two daughters, namely, Sneha Singh (aged 17 years)
and Shikha Singh (aged 15 years), all minors. The deceased husband was having no
children from his first wife and therefore he married the petitioner with the consent of
his first wife, Yasoda Devi as per Hindu rites and custom. The petitioner is living
cordially along with first wife Yashoda Devi without any murmur or grudge and is
also serving her in her old age. The minor children are pursuing studies and petitioner
is financially suffering a great deal for non release of the family pension and other
monetary benefits. Since the same was not released the petitioner filed representation
on 28.09.2020 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
for grant of family pension and other monetary benefits and also for compassionate
appointment of her minor son namely Yuvraj Singh on the post of Bal Arakshi. On the
representation filed by the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum vide order No.2010 dated 13.07.2021 has been pleased to grant family
pension to the minor children (son and daughters) but other monetary benefits were
declined. Even no order for appointment of her minor son on compassionate ground
has been passed till date, hence this writ petition has been preferred.
3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues
that petitioner is entitled for family pension as her name finds place in the service
book of the deceased husband. Learned Senior Counsel further argues that even first
wife Yashoda Devi had given application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to consider case of son Yuvraj Singh for compassionate
appointment but the same has not been considered till date.
4. Per contra, no counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri,
learned counsel submits that in absence of counter affidavit he is not in a position to
justify the stand of the petitioner. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, however, opposes the
contention of learned senior counsel and submits that save and except the statement
made in paragraphs-4 no document has been annexed to show that petitioner is
nominee as her name finds place in the service book.
5. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the
parties this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs
consideration. The law is well settled that second wife is not entitled for retiral
benefits as well as family pension. It has been held in celebrated Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
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 been
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."
The issue relating family pension of the second wife when her name
finds place in the service excerpts of the deceased employee felled for consideration
before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyadhari and Ors. Vs. Sukhrana
Bai and Ors., reported in (2008) AIR SC 1420; the Hon'ble Court at paras-9 & 10
has observed that;
9...... The law is clear on this issue that nominee like Vidhyadhari who was
claiming the death benefits arising out of the employment can always file an
application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act as there is nothing in
that Section to prevent such a nominee from claiming the certificate on the basis
of nomination. The High Court should have realized that Vidhyadhari was not
only a nominee but also was the mother of four children of Sheetaldeen who were
the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen and whose names also found in Form A which was
the declaration of Sheetaldeen during his life-time. In her application
Vidhyadhari candidly pointed out the names of the four children as the legal heirs
of Sheetaldeen. Admittedly, she had the status of a nominee of Sheetaldeen.
10. Therefore, though we agree with the High Court that Sukhrana Bai was the
only letigimate wife yet, we would chose to grant the certificate in favour of
Vidhyadhari who was his nominee and the mother of his four children. However,
we must balance the equities as Sukhrana Bai is also one of the legal heirs and
besides the four children she would have the equal share in Sheetaldeen's estate
which would be 1/5th . To balance the equities we would, therefore, chose to grant
Succession Certificate to Vidhyadhari but with a rider that she would protect the
1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in Sheetaldeen's properties and would hand over the
same to her. As the nominee she would hold the 1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in
trust and would be responsible to pay the same to Sukhrana Bai. We direct that
for this purpose she would give a security in the Trial Court to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court.
In the instant case it is not for dispute that both the first wife and second
wife are staying together and are having cordial relation and the name of the second
wife finds place as nominee in the service excerpt. If the second wife gives an
undertaking that she will maintain the first wife in her old age, there would be no any
illegality in releasing the family pension to the second wife and also her children. As
far as appointment on compassionate ground for Bal Arakshi is concerned the
petitioner may make a representation before the respondent-authorities and the same
may be considered in accordance with law and a reasoned order be passed. If any
decision is taken in favour of the petitioner name of his minor son may be considered
for compassionate appointment and if any adverse order is passed the same may also
be communicated to the petitioner.
6. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
Rohit/-
