Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 155 (MEG)

Marcyana N. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2019-05-15

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA for the respondent No. 1 & 2 and Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC for the respondent No. 3. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased husband of the petitioner was working as Havildar under the respondent No. 2 and retired from service on 30.11.2002. The first wife of the deceased employee namely, Smti. Minarish B. Sangma whose name was entered as a legal wife in the pension paper vide P.P.O. No. 8393 however pre-deceased the employee and on her demise, the said deceased employee, Shri. Dhonoy M. Marak married the petitioner on 05.04.2013 as per Christian Marriage Act, 1872, and out of the said wedlock, a female child was born. Thereafter, the deceased employee had filed a representation to the authorities for inclusion of the name of the petitioner and the child for the benefit of pension, but the said representation was not replied leading to the filing of the WP(C) No. 214 of 2016 for necessary directions. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the said Dhonoy M. Marak expired on 09.11.2016 and as such, the said writ petition was withdrawn and the petitioner being the legally wedded second 2 wife of the deceased employee has preferred this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that there is no reason for denial of the pension to the petitioner who is the second wife in view of the fact that Rule 48 of the Principal Rules of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983 had been amended. She draws the attention of this Court to the amendment portion i.e. Note (2) of Rule 48 which permits post-retiral spouses and children born/adopted legally after retirement to be eligible for family pension. She further submits that the respondents at Para 9 of the affidavit has admitted the request for payment of family pension to the writ petitioner and that the respondents themselves had informed the Accountant General. She therefore prays for appropriate directions for correction of the name in the payment pension order and for release of family pension to the petitioner along with arrears as admissible. 4. Learned Addl. Sr. She therefore prays for appropriate directions for correction of the name in the payment pension order and for release of family pension to the petitioner along with arrears as admissible. 4. Learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 & 2 does not refute the submissions as advanced and also to the stated position of the amended rule. He further refers to the letter dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure-II of the affidavit-in-opposition) issued by the Office of the Accountant General, wherein it is stated that change of nomination for family pension of (L) Dhonoy M. Marak would depend upon the orders passed by this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have given due consideration to the facts and materials in detail. The admitted position in this case, is that the petitioner is the legally married second wife of the deceased employee whose marriage was contracted after the demise of the first wife and after the retirement of the deceased employee. 6. The amended rule 48 of the Principal Rules of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983 as given in Note (2), is quoted herein below for easy reference: "Amendment of Rule 48:- (1) Rule 48 (i).. . 3 Note 2: Post-retiral spouses/children born after retirement:- The family pension is admissible to post-retiral spouses and children born/adopted legally after retirement." As such, family pension is admissible to post-retiral spouses and children born/adopted legally after retirement. 7. In view of the circumstances and the fact that there is no dispute as to the marital status of the petitioner with regards to the deceased employee, it is hereby directed that the respondent No. 1 & 2 make necessary corrections to substitute the name of the petitioner in place of the deceased first wife and to communicate the same to the respondent No. 3 for issuance of authorization for payment of pension. This exercise is to be completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The name of the child out of the said wedlock is also to be inserted accordingly. 8. With the said directions and observations, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.