K.P.Ranganayagi v. The Director of Elementary Education

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.04.2011CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.24756 of 2010andM.P.No.1 of 2010K.P.Ranganayagi.. Petitioner Vs.1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-6.2.The Accountant General O/o.The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.3.The District Treasury Officer, 'B' Block 1st Floor, Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore.4.Pattammal.. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamusto direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the Family Pensioneffective May, 2010 with arrears of late K.M.Perumal retiredSecondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Poigai,Vellore District to the petitioner who is the legally wedded firstwife. For Petitioner : .Mr.M.G.HarikrishnanFor Respondents : Mr.A.Suresh, GA(Education) for R-1 Mr.V.Vijayashankar for R-2 Ms.C.Devi, GA for R-3 Mr.J.Shanmuga Sundara Babu for R-4- - - - ORDERThe writ petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to bethe wife of late K.M.Perumal, seeking for a direction torespondents 1 to 3 to pay family pension with effect from May, 2010together with arrears of pension payable to late K.M.Perumal whoretired as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat UnionElementary School at Poigai, Vellore District. This was on thepremises that she is the legally wedded first wife. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.When the matter came up on 2.11.2010, the petitioner wasdirected to serve on the Standing Counsel for second respondent.The learned Government Advocate took notice for the firstrespondent. In respect of respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner wasdirected to serve privately. On notice, the second and fourthrespondents have filed counter affidavits. 3.It is stated by the second respondent Accountant Generalthat late K.M.Perumal had retired from service on 31.5.1994 and hedied on 30.8.1997. All terminal benefits were received by lateK.M.Perumal himself. It is stated that the petitioner was referredto as a family pension beneficiary by the Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, Vellore in his proposal and her name wasincorporated. She was authorized to receive family pension.Accordingly, the petitioner was in receipt of family pension uptoApril, 2010. But, however the fourth respondent has filed a writpetition in W.P.No.6015 of 2009 claiming to be the first wife oflate K.M.Perumal and sought for family pension. In that writpetition, the present petitioner was cited as the 7th respondent andthat she did not appear during proceedings. This Court by an orderdated 27.10.2009 had directed the respondents to consider therepresentation of the fourth respondent on merits. It is on suchdirection, the fourth respondent's representation together with thelegal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Vellore and thecopy of nomination was considered. The petitioner had alsosubmitted certain documents. 4.It was stated that both claimed that they were thelegally wedded wives of late K.M.Perumal. But, however in thefamily ration card for the year 2005-2009, the fourth respondentwas mentioned as the head of the family, which included thepetitioner as also the member. The Tahsildar, Vellore had issued acertificate, dated 17.2.2009, wherein the fourth respondent wasshown as the first wife and the petitioner as the second wife. Itis only in case where the marriage was solemnized before the dateof Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 or if the marriage was done under theMohammedan Law, the question of payment of pension to the secondwife will arise. Therefore, by an order, dated 18.5.2010, pensionpaid to the petitioner was denied. It was held that she was noteligible for family pension. It was also found that lateK.M.Perumal had married the petitioner while the first marriage wasin subsistence. Under these circumstances, it was claimed that thepetitioner was not eligible for family pension. 5.In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent,it was stated that the fourth respondent got married in the year1963 and the petitioner got married to late K.M.Perumal only in theyear1967. Before the death of K.M.Perumal, he had received allbenefits. After his death, when the fourth respondent hadapproached the authorities, there was no proper response. Hence shehad moved this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.The learned counsel for the respondents referred to anunreported judgment of this Court rendered by K.Narayana Kurup,J.,in W.P.No.45 of 1996 dated 14.09.2001 [K.Muthulakshmi v. ThePrincipal Accountant General and others], wherein an identicalclaim was rejected by this Court. In that case after referring tothe clarification letter issued by the Government, the learnedJudge held that the rejection of the claim made by the second wifefor pension was justified.7.The learned counsel for the respondents also referred tothe judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State ofBihar and others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 for contending thatif a marriage is void marriage, then the alleged second wife cannotbe treated as a widow and the person cannot be eligible for anyfamily pension on account of she being a widow of the deceasedgovernment servant. The fact that the law recognizes illegitimatechildren born out of such marriage, but that cannot be a ground fortreating the second wife as eligible to claim pension. Inparagraph 14, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-"14. It cannot be disputed that the marriagebetween Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was incontravention of clause (i) of Section 5 of the HinduMarriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section16 of this Act, children of a void marriage arelegitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolvesfirstly on heirs in clause (1) which include thewidow and son. Among the widow and son, they all getshares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to theHindu Succession Act, 1956). Yogmaya Devi cannot bedescribed as a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage withNarain Lal being void. The sons of the marriagebetween Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being thelegitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled tothe property of Narain Lal in equal shares along withthat of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from themarriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is,however, the legal position when a Hindu male diesintestate. Here, however, we are concerned with thefamily pension and death-cum-retirement gratuitypayments which are governed by the relevant rules. Itis not disputed before us that if the legal positionas aforesaid is correct, there is no error with thedirections issued by the learned Single Judge in thejudgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in LPAby the impugned judgment."(Emphasis added)8.It is always open to the Government to define the term'Family' and exclude persons who do not qualify to be termed as'wife'. No exception can be taken if any such clarification isissued by the State Government. It is one thing to talk about the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ obligation of a man being husband to his wife. The other thing isthe State's obligation towards a Government servant in affordingprotection to him as well as to his family during his tenure aswell as after retirement. But that cannot be over stretched toinclude even for provision of pension for a second wife, which ifgranted not only will fritter away the limited resources vest withthe State but also will encourage bigamous marriages which had beenprohibited not only by family law and the criminal law of the landbut even as per the Government Servants' Conduct Rules.9.In the light of the above, the contentions of thepetitioner cannot be countenanced. Hence the writ petition willstand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Theorder of status quo stands vacated. Connected miscellaneouspetition stands closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkTo1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-6.2.The Accountant General O/o.The Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.3.The District Treasury Officer, 'B' Block 1st Floor, Collectorate, Sathuvachari, Vellore.1 cc To Mr.V.Vijayshankar, Advocate, SR.242971 cc To Mr.M.G.Harikrishnan, Advocate, SR.235631 cc To Mr.J.Shanmugasundarababu, Advocate, SR.233761 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.23791W.P.NO.24756 of 2010RK(CO)sra 26/04/2011