AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
32 paragraphs · 304 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner; State and
Accountant General.
The petitioner has moved the Court seeking a
direction for payment of family pension to her.
The petitioner herself claims to be the second wife of
Suresh Mohan Thakur, who was a Government employee and
superannuated in the year 1992 and also received his post retiral
benefits. During his life time, the first wife died on 02.03.2012 and
thus, the husband filed a petition before the authorities for
substituting the name of his first wife with that of the petitioner.
However, the authorities did not act on the same and in the
meanwhile, on 11.08.2015, the employee also died.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she
is the second wife and now when the first wife is dead, family
pension should be given to her.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that in terms
of the circular of the Finance Department of the State Government
bearing No. P.C.-1-Misc.-41/92/10059/Vi., dated 06.09.1996, it is
only the first wife who is entitled to family pension and thereafter the
dependant minor children of both the wives can have a right on
family pension but the second wife has been excluded from getting
family pension.
Having considered the matter, the Court is unable to
intervene for the reason that the policy of the Sate Government does
not permit payment of family pension to the second wife. In the
present case, admittedly, the petitioner herself claims to be the
second wife and just because the first wife has died, her status will
not change and she will not become the first wife, though she may be
the only wife/widow now living.
In view of the aforesaid provision, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
