Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 271 (PAT)

DULARI DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR

2021-03-22

PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of office order, contained in letter no. 4123 dated 13.03.2019, issued under the signature of Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna (Respondent no. 7), whereby the Treasure Officer, Nirmali, District - Supaul (Respondent no. 5) has been directed to make payment of the family pension only to the first wife of the deceased employee Raghuvir Ram namely Maha Devi (Respondent no. 8), ignoring the claim of this petitioner, who claims to be second wife of deceased Raghuvir Ram, with a further direction to respondents to make payment of family pension to this petitioner also taking into account that she is one of the widow of her deceased husband, having no source of her livelihood. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of this petitioner namely late Raghuvir Ram had been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Middle School on 15.01.1974 and superannuated from service on 30.11.2012. It is further contended that after retirement, pension payment order was issued on 09.04.2013 containing the photographs of both the wives including the petitioner. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner expired on 18.08.2015 leaving behind his first wife Maha Devi (Respondent no. 8) as well as this petitioner. 4. It is further claimed by the petitioner that petitioner had married with deceased employee Raghuvir Ram with the permission of the government and therefore, she is entitled to get family pension in terms of Bihar Finance Department Circular, vide Memo No. 149/2010-1549 dated 27.06.2011. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 8/first wife of deceased employee, wherein, it is specifically stated that petitioner is trying to mislead the Court by annexing false documents. In fact, the petitioner was not the second wife of late Raghuvir Ram. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of Respondent no. 8 that Bihar Finance Department Circular, vide Memo No. 149/2010-1549 dated 27.06.2011, is applicable only to Mohammedans and not in the case of the petitioner. In this connection, counsel for Respondent no. 8 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court Kalawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (3) PLJR 587 . 8 that Bihar Finance Department Circular, vide Memo No. 149/2010-1549 dated 27.06.2011, is applicable only to Mohammedans and not in the case of the petitioner. In this connection, counsel for Respondent no. 8 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court Kalawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2014 (3) PLJR 587 . It is further submitted that it is settled law that second wife of a government servant is not entitled for family pension while the first wife is alive. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with law, which requires no interference by this Court. 7. On the other hand, counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Respondents no. 3 and 4, in which, in paragraph-7, it has been specifically stated that on the basis of the record, available in the office, no permission was ever granted or accorded to the deceased employee Raghuvir Ram to perform second marriage. It is further contended that in view of Rule 186of Bihar Pension Rule, only the first wife is entitled to get family pension and there is no concept of second wife and since the petitioner herself claims to be second wife of late Raghuvir Ram, there is no question of giving her family pension. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the materials available on record, this Court does not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner. Law is well settled in this regard and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 431 , has already beld that the second wife, who marries an employee having a spouse living at the time of marriage, would not be entitled to receive family pension. Moreover, the aforesaid Finance Department circular, on the basis of which petitioner is claiming pension, is an exception made only with regard to Mohammedans because of the Mohammedan Personal Law. So far as Hindus are concerned, they do not have a right contrary to law. That apart, the petitioner has not filed any chit of paper in support of her claim to have married with the deceased employee with the permission of the government. 9. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has not filed any chit of paper in support of her claim to have married with the deceased employee with the permission of the government. 9. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.