Madras High Court
S.Rajalakshmi vs The Chief Internal Audit Officer on 5 November, 2024
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P.(MD).No.658 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.658 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD) No.664 of 2023
S.Rajalakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Internal Audit Officer,
Board Office Audit Branch,
TANGEDCO,
O.P.K.R.R.Maligai - 1st Floor,
144/800, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
Virudhunagar Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records pertaining to the proceedings in Letter No.004884/194/F4/I.K.A No.
42683/2022, dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash
the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent to disburse the
monetary pension benefits to the petitioner.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.658 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mrs.V.Sebastinal Preethi
For R2 : Mr.S.Arivalagan
ORDER
The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the second wife of an
employee of the respondent Corporation seeking to quash the order dated
30.03.2022, wherein the request for family pension has been rejected.
2. A perusal of the writ affidavit reveals that one Mr.Sankaralingam,
working as an internal Auditor in the TANGEDCO had attained
superannuation on 03.05.2022 and he has received all the terminal benefits.
As per the affidavit, the employee was married to one Velammal and while
she was alive, the petitioner has got married to the employee on 19.01.1987
with the consent of the first wife. The very averments in the writ affidavit
clearly disclose that the employee had got married to the writ petitioner while
the first marriage was subsisting. Citing the above said ground, the order
impugned in the writ petition has been passed rejecting the request of the
petitioner for family pension.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Hon'ble Division Bench of our High Court in a judgment
reported in (2018) 5 Mad LJ 385 (R.Rajathi Vs. the Superintendent
Engineer TANGEDCO Limited and another) in paragraph No. 42 has held
as follows:
“42. A substantially similar view has been
expressed by another learned Judge of this Court in
P.Velammal v. The Additional Assistant Elementary
Educational Office, Sivagangai District in WP (MD) No.
3096 of 2016, wherein, after taking note of the provisions
of Section 5 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well
as the explanation added to Sub Rule 7 of Rule 49, the
learned Single Judge has held as follows:
12. Law is settled that two Hindus cannot
contract marriage after the enforcement of the
Hindu Marriage Act and if any of them is having
a living spouse, the marriage would be a nullity
and would also not be protected under the
Conduct Rules, as well as, the pension rules.
Therefore, the “second wife” as referred to
under the pension rules would only include
second wife whose marriage is permissible
under the Personal Law, but in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hindus, the second wife will have no right,
whatsoever, as the law prohibits second
marriage, as long as, the Government servant
has a spouse who is alive. Thus for harmonious
construction of the Rules governing pension,
wherever, the rule provides for wives, it has to
be interpreted as per the law governing
marriage as applicable to the Government
servant and in cases where the second marriage
is void under the law, second wife will have no
status of a widow of the Government servant
and relying on protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the opinion of
this Court, is only taking a shelter.”
4. In view of the judgment of our High Court, the second wife, whose
marriage is not valid, is not entitled to receive family pension from the
respondent Corporation and there are no merits in this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.11.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Chief Internal Audit Officer,
Board Office Audit Branch,
TANGEDCO,
O.P.K.R.R.Maligai - 1st Floor,
144/800, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Superintendent Engineer,
Virudhunagar Distribution Circle,
TANGEDCO,
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
05.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
