Telangana High Court
Ayesha Begum vs Prl. Secy., I And Cad Dept. And 4 Ors. on 6 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 33127 OF 2017
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to be the second wife of late
Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan, who retired on 31.07.2007
voluntarily. Following the death of his first wife on 22.11.2009,
Ismail Ali Khan married petitioner on 09.05.2013 under Muslim
law. During their marriage, the deceased pensioner submitted
annual verification certificates dated 05.11.2013 and
09.12.2015 to the 4th respondent, explicitly revising the details
of his spouse to include petitioner's name and their marriage
date. These documents are presented as evidence that the
deceased employee informed the authorities of his second
marriage during his lifetime.
While so, Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan passed away
on 29.01.2017. Therefore, petitioner, as the surviving spouse
and legal heir, applied for family pension on 18.05.2017,
submitting all relevant documents and notarized affidavits from
family members who raised no objection to petitioner receiving
pension. She further submitted prescribed forms, bank account
details and additional representations on 14.07.2017 and
24.07.2017. Despite these efforts, the 3rd respondent through
letter dated 10.08.2017 and the 2nd respondent through letter
dated 28.08.2017 rejected her claim, stating that no nomination
was made during the deceased's lifetime for the petitioner as a
second wife to receive the pension. They also cited the absence
of departmental permission for the second marriage under the
AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Petitioner challenges these rejections, emphasizing
that Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the APRPS Rules, 1980, provides for
family pension to be shared equally among multiple widows,
which is not applicable here as the first wife had passed away. It
is argued that Rule 25 of the AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1964, which requires prior permission for a second marriage, is
irrelevant as her marriage occurred after the first wife's death
and was permissible under Muslim personal law. She highlights
that Section 255 of Mohammedan Law permits a Muslim man to
have upto four wives and that her marriage was valid under
these provisions.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri G. Seena Kumar
relying on the judgments in Rukhia Banu v. Commissioner
and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad 1 and Shaik Jani
Begum v. Shaik Sira Junnisa Begum @ Surya Kumari2
submits that second wife is entitled to family pension and other
benefits, provided marriage was valid and pensioner had
submitted relevant details during their lifetime. In this case,
deceased's annual verification certificates submitted in 2013
and 2015, constitute sufficient notification to the authorities
about his second marriage and family members had also
accepted her entitlement to pension and that respondents'
refusal to process her claim contradicts the evidence on record.
According to learned counsel, the 1980 Rules do not prohibit a
second wife from receiving family pension, particularly in cases
where the first wife is deceased.
3. Respondents countered the case of petitioner
stating that the latter submitted Application dated 26.05.2017
to the 2nd respondent for release of family pension which was
forwarded to the 3rd respondent seeking clarification and
instructions through letter dated 02.06.2017 and letter dated
06.06.2017. It was noted that Late Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan,
Superintendent retired voluntarily on 31.07.2007 and he had
2013 (6) ALD 636
2017 (1) ALD 88
not submitted any declaration or nomination regarding his
remarriage to the 2nd respondent during his lifetime. Hence, the
3rd respondent issued letter dated 10.08.2017 informing the 2nd
respondent that as per Rule 49 of the 1980 Rules, every
Government servant must provide a nomination specifying the
spouse's name for pensionary benefits. The representation dated
09.01.2017 made by the deceased pensioner to the 4th
respondent only pertained the death benefits of his first wife,
who expired on 22.11.2009 but he had not declared his second
marriage during his lifetime, nor was it entered into the service
records. The 2nd respondent, based on these observations,
issued letter dated 28.08.2017 to petitioner stating that her
name had not been entered into the service records and
deceased had not nominated her as a beneficiary of the family
pension. Thus, as per the applicable rules and instructions from
the 3rd respondent, she was ineligible to claim family pension.
Though petitioner claimed that her husband mentioned her as
his spouse and noted the date of their marriage (09.05.2013) in
a communication to the 4th respondent, there was no
corresponding intimation to Respondents 2 and 3 who are
concerned for forwarding pension-related matters. The action
taken against her application was communicated through letter
dated 28.08.2017.
According to respondents, Rule 49 of the 1980
Rules mandates a nomination for pension benefits and Rule
50(6)(a)(i) pertains to cases where multiple widows may be
entitled to a family pension. However, in this case, the deceased
employee had neither declared his remarriage nor nominated
petitioner, making her claim in consistent with the rules.
It is the further case of respondents that the 2nd
respondent addressed on 16.02.2018 to the Chairman, Andhra
Pradesh Wakf Board/Telangana seeking genuineness of the
marriage certificate of petitioner and reminder was also sent on
17.04.2018, but the same was not acted upon. Similarly, the
confirmation sought by the 2nd respondent regarding family
member certificate was also not received.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits
that petitioner's reliance on Rule 25 of the 1964 Rules and Rule
50(6)(a)(i) of the 1980 Rules is misplaced for, the 2nd marriage
was not declared or recorded by the deceased pensioner, and
the Petitioner is not entitled to a family pension under the
existing rules.
5. It is well-settled principle that Muslim Personal Law
allows a Muslim man to marry up to four wives, provided
certain conditions are met. In this case, the first wife of the
employee pre-deceased him leaving no legal bar to petitioner's
marriage with deceased. As could be seen from the annual
verification reports dated 05.11.2013 and 09.12.2015,
petitioner's name was mentioned as spouse with date of
remarriage as 09.05.2013. Respondents have not produced any
evidence to the contra. Hence, the said certificates can be
deemed to be sufficient to the authorities regarding his second
marriage and recognition of petitioner as his wife. While
respondents contend that there was no formal nomination or
declaration in the service records, submission of verification
certificates constitutes substantial compliance with Rule 50 of
the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules (APRPS), 1980. The
said Rule provides that in cases where there are multiple
widows, family pension is to be shared equally among them. The
said provision is not applicable in the case on hand as the first
wife pre-deceased pensioner. Hence, the contention of learned
counsel for petitioner that his client, as the sole surviving
spouse, and who also obtained no objection consent from legal
heirs of deceased, is entitled to the full family pension, holds
merit, as the Rule does not explicitly prohibit a second wife from
receiving family pension if the marriage was valid under
personal law and the pensioner had notified the authorities.
6. Respondents' reliance on Rule 25 of the A.P. Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires prior permission
for a second marriage, is misplaced. The second marriage took
place after the death of the first wife and did not violate the
Conduct Rules. Additionally, deceased pensioner retired at the
time of the second marriage, rendering applicability of this Rule
debatable. The validity of the marriage under Muslim Personal
Law supersedes the requirement for departmental permission in
this context. The judgments relied on by petitioner in the cases
mentioned supra affirm the entitlement of a second wife to
family pension if the marriage was valid under personal law.
Petitioner admittedly, submitted all requisite documents,
including death certificate, marriage certificate and notarized
affidavits from family members who raised no objection.
Respondents, despite receiving these documents, failed to
process her claim and issued rejection orders based on
technicalities rather than substantive compliance with the
Rules. Therefore, this Court holds that rejection of petitioner's
claim for family pension is arbitrary and contrary to the
provisions of the APRPS Rules, 1980.
7. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed setting aside
the orders dated 10.08.2017 and 28.08.2017. Respondents are
directed to process and release the family pension of
Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan in favour of petitioner along with
arrears from the date of his death, i.e. 29.01.2017, within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs.
8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
06th March 2025
ksld
