Padmavati vs Principal Accountant General (A & E) and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the nomination made in the service book of the deceased and also keep in view the terms of the compromise decree dated 13.07.2011 passed in O.S. No. 187/2008 and release the family pension and other benefits that accrued to the petitioner due to the death of her husband - Udayraj.

The employee-Udayraj was working as Agriculture Assistant under respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the Agriculture Department. The petitioner claims that she is the wife of the said Udayraj. The said Udayraj expired while in service on 25.10.2008. The sixth respondent at an earlier point had claimed that she is the wife of Udayraj and therefore, had filed a suit in O.S. No. 187/2008 seeking declaration to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased - Udayraj. The suit ended in a compromise before the Lok-Adalath wherein the parties had agreed to receive 50% of the benefits each which was accrued. Insofar as the family pension and the pensionary arrears and benefits, it has been agreed therein that defendant No. 1 to the said suit namely petitioner herein would be exclusively entitled to the same. It is in that view, the petitioner claims that the right to the family pension be granted in favour of the petitioner.

Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 that is the private parties impleaded herein and who were parties to the suit wherein the compromise is stated to be entered have not chosen to appear and contest the version as put-forth by the petitioner.

The learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would however contend that the claim as put-forth by the petitioner cannot be accepted since the rules does not provide for the second wife to be recognized for the purpose of disbursement of the terminal benefits of an employee. It is in that regard pointed out that even though the petitioner has relied on the order dated 17.07.2013 since it is indicated therein that the petitioner is the second wife, the benefit as claimed cannot be granted. To substantiate the contention put-forth, the learned Additional Government Advocate would seek to rely on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others, .

Having taken note of the rival contentions, insofar as the legal position sought to be contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate with reference to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court there can be absolutely no quarrel over the position that a second wife cannot claim status of wife as the second marriage would be illegal under law.

The question however in the instant facts is as to whether the petitioner could be considered as the second wife of the deceased employee at this point. To consider this aspect, what is necessary to be noticed at the outset is that on the death of the employee-Udayraj, it is the sixth respondent herein who had claimed to be the legally wedded wife and had approached the Civil Court in O.S. No. 187/2008 seeking a declaration to be the legally wedded wife. The said suit did not result in the adjudication of the contentions of the parties but had ended in a compromise between the parties. If that be the position, the claim made by the sixth respondent to be the legally wedded wife has not been considered in the civil suit and the declaration has not been granted in her favour. However, based on the compromise, parties have agreed to receive the amount to which the petitioner herein who was the first defendant has also conceded. That alone does not take away the right of the petitioner to contend that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.

That apart, what is necessary to be noticed is that the employee himself during his lifetime has nominated the petitioner herein for the pensionary benefits as seen from Annexure-B wherein he has described the petitioner as the wife and has indicated that the full share of the amount be paid to her. If that be the position, insofar as respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, when there is no other declaration granted by the Court to declare the sixth respondent to be the wife, the declaration as made by the employee in the service record recognizing the petitioner as wife would have to be reckoned and the same should be acted upon by the employer. In addition to the same, in the suit between the parties, the plaintiffs therein have not claimed any right towards the pensionary benefits but have agreed that defendant No. 1 therein namely the petitioner herein would be entitled to receive the same. If these aspects of the matter are kept in view and when the employee himself has nominated the petitioner, there can be no impediment for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to accept the said nomination made by the employee in the name of the petitioner to receive the pensionary benefits accruing on account of the death of late Udayraj.

Therefore, a direction is issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to enter the name of the petitioner in the records for the purpose of receiving pensionary benefits on account of the death of her husband Udayraj and the family pension be released in favour of the petitioner.

With the said direction, the petition stands disposed of.