Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager & Others). He further submits that some arrears
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2515 of 2025 ----- Khukumani Devi, W/o Late Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, R/o Village- Oriya, P.O. Muru, P.S. Nimdih, Dist. Seraikella-Kharsawan 2025:JHHC:33754 Versus .... Petitioner(s). The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand 3.The Director, (Primary Education), School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand 4.The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, West Singhbhum 5.The Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Seraikella Kharsawan 6.The District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa 7.The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella, Kharsawan 8.The Treasury Officer, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa 9.The Treasury Officer, Seraikella Kharsawan 10.The Treasury Officer, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum 11.The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, A.G. More, Doranda Ranchi 12.The Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Veerchand Patel Road Area, Patna, Bihar … Respondent(s) CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) For the Resp-State For the Resp No.11 ------
Legal Reasoning
and submits that the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.118 of 2019 will not have any binding effect. He submits that the said order was passed without considering many legal aspects and also considering the Hindu Law and the effect of marriage of this petitioner. It is the case of the State that the petitioner in the first round in W.P.(S) No.118 of 2019 has suppressed material facts and status of this petitioner. By suppressing material facts, the petitioner had got the order dated 24.07.2019, which cannot have any binding effect. Further, he submits that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to which the petitioner is relying upon is passed invoking Article 142 of Constitution of India. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly suggests that to do complete justice in the peculiar fact of that case the Supreme Court has passed the aforesaid order under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which cannot have any binding effect and the similar power is not vested with the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that in none of the service records of the deceased- Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, the name of this petitioner appears, rather the name of Falguni Devi is reflected in all -2- the service record, who is wife of the deceased. He lastly submits that the marriage of this petitioner with Jawahar Lal Singh Deo is void as during the subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner solemnized marriage with said Jawahar Lal Singh Deo in the year 1976. 5. Jawahar Lal Singh Deo was a teacher employed under the State. After his death, this petitioner is claiming family pension. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that during the subsistence of marriage of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo with Falguni Devi, Jawahar Lal Singh Deo married this petitioner. It is also admitted that in none of the service record of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, the name of this petitioner find place. The PPO was also issued in the name of Falguni Devi and not in favour of this petitioner. 6. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo. She and Jawahar Lal Singh Deo are Hindus and governed by Hindu Law. In Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 there are few conditions for a valid Hindu Marriage. One of the conditions is that neither of the party should have spouse living at the time of marriage. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that the marriage which is solemnized after commencement of the Act shall be null and void, if the same contravene any one of the conditions specified in Clause (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As per the said provision of law as mentioned above neither of the party should have spouse living at the time of marriage. This means that if any of the party is solemnizing marriage, has spouse living at the time of solemnization of the said marriage, the subsequent marriage is void. In this case admittedly, the deceased employee Jawahar Lal Singh Deo had a wife- Falguni Devi who was alive at the time of alleged marriage between Jawahar Lal Singh Deo and this petitioner. Thus, marriage of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo with this petitioner is void. -3- 7. So far as the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.118 of 2019 is concerned, I am of the view that the said order cannot be having any binding effect upon this Court. In the said writ petition along with the petitioner, four other persons approached this Court praying for grant of arrears of salary. The details of this petitioner is very scanty in the pleadings of that case. From perusal of the pleadings of the aforesaid writ petition, I find that the petitioner
Arguments
: Mr. M.M. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate Mr. S. Mitra, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, AC to G.P.-III : Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate …...... 05 / 11.11.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to sanction and release the family pension to the petitioner as she claims to be the widow of late Jawahar Lal Singh Deo, who superannuated from service on 31.07.1996 as an Assistant Primary Teacher in the District of Seraikella Kharsawan and later on died on 10.10.2009. Further prayer has been made to pay the arrears of family pension to the petitioner which is due since 11.10.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased- late Jawahar Lal Singh Deo and being the wife, after death of the employee, she is entitled for family pension. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No.2365 of 2022 (Radha Devi vs. Chief General Manager & Others). He further submits that some arrears of salary was paid to the petitioner in terms of order passed in W.P.(S) No.118 of 2019 (Roseline Tudu & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others). He submits that when pursuant to the order of the High Court, some arrears of salary were paid to the petitioner, there cannot be any impediment in disbursing the pension and the family pension. 4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
Decision
had only mentioned in the writ petition that she is the wife of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo. Nowhere in the said petition, the petitioner has whispered about the fact that the first spouse of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo was living at the time of marriage of this petitioner. The aforesaid issue was not brought to the notice of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the death benefit of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo was not also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench while disposing W.P.(S) No.118 of 2019. 8. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the operative portion has clearly held “in order to do complete justice” the direction was given to pay family pension to the Radha Devi who was also the second wife. Further, the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was passed in terms of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Article 142 of the Constitution of India vest power to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to make such order, if it is necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. Order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken to be a precedent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 in paragraph 30 has held as under:- 30. It is well settled that a judgment is a precedent for the issue of law which is raised and decided. It is the ratio decidendi of the case which operates as a binding in State of Punjab v. Surinder precedent. As observed by this Court -4- Kumar [State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar, (1992) 1 SCC 489 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 345], what is binding on all courts is what the Supreme Court says under Article 141 of the Constitution, which is declaration of the law and not what it does under Article 142 to do complete justice. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied by the petitioner is also not applicable in this case. 9. From what has been held above, it is clear that the marriage of Jawahar Lal Singh Deo with the petitioner is void. Further, neither the name of the petitioner reflects in any of the service record of the State, nor the PPO (Pension Payment order) was issued in favour of this petitioner, rather it was issued in the name of the wife, namely, Falguni Devi. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition, accordingly the same is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 11th November, 2025 R.S./ -5-