The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. WP(C)No.(SH)162/2012 Smti.Chalia S Sangma, W/o (L) Nonjing Marak, Village: Nogorpara, P.O. Nogorpara, P.S.Mahendraganj, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya -Vs- :::: Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Meghalaya, represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong. The Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills, Tura, Meghalaya. The Pay and Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Meghalaya, Shillong. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Nogorpara Branch, P.O. Nogorpara, P.S. Mahendraganj, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya. :::: Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T NANDAKUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner For the Respondents Date of hearing Date of Judgment & Order : : : : Mrs. S Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R Gurung, GA, Mr. R Deb Nath, CGC None appears for the respdt.No.4 11.07.2013 11.07.2013 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) Heard Mrs S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R Gurung, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. R Deb Nath, WP(C)No.(SH)162/2012 Page 1 of 5 learned counsel for the respondent No.3. None appears for the respondent No.4 inspite of proper service of notice of the present writ petition to him. 2. The only prayer sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 to pay family pension of the deceased (L) Nonjing Marak to the petitioner. For this simple prayer, it is not required to mention the facts in detail leading to the filing of the present writ petition and a short fact sufficient for deciding the present writ petition is noted. 3. One (L) Nonjing Marak was working as UB Constable under the respondent No.2 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills, Tura, Meghalaya and retired from the service under V.R.S. on 01.07.1994. (L) Nonjing Marak nominated his wife Smti.Walnish S.Sangma to enter into his service book for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Smti.Walnish S. Sangma, unfortunately expired on 12.03.1996. (L) Nonjing Marak, after his retirement from service was drawing pension vide PPO No.MG/3627 dated 31.10.1994 payable at the A/c No.01190010289 of the State Bank of India, Nogorpara Branch, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya i.e. the Bank A/c No. of (L) Nonjing Marak. 4. (L) Nonjing Marak after the death of his wife Smti. Walnish S. Sangma again married with the present petitioner on 12.04.1996. Therefore, at the time of marriage of the present petitioner with (L) Nonjing Marak, the first wife of (L) Nonjing Marak had already been expired i.e. on 12.03.1996. There is no law which prohibits the retired Govt. employee after the death of his first wife to marry to another lady. It is a trite law that there cannot be a valid marriage of a person with another lady during the subsistence of his marriage with his first wife. The present case as stated above, as the first wife i.e. Smti.Walnish S Sangma had already expired on 12.03.1996, the marriage of (L) Nonjing Marak with the present petitioner on 12.04.1996 is valid. WP(C)No.(SH)162/2012 Page 2 of 5 5. (L) Nonjing Marak in compliance with the rules had duly informed the concerned authority that he had married with the present petitioner. Under the relevant portion of the Meghalaya Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1983, the concerned retired Govt. employee shall duly inform the development which concerned with the payment of pension after retirement from service to the concerned authority. Accordingly, (L) Nonjing Marak under his letter/application dated 17.12.2010 requested the Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills, Tura for insertion of the present petitioner as nominee for his pension in his service book. The said letter/application dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure-III to writ petition) reads as follows:- “ The Superintendent of Police, West Garo Hills, Tura. Date 17-12-2010. Subject: Nomination of wife as beneficiary of pension. Sir, I beg to leave to state as follows:- 1) I retired as UB constable from your DEF on 01.07.1994. At that time the name of wife, Walnish S Sangma was entered in my service book as nominee. 2) Unfortunately, my wife expired as 12-3-1996. Her death certificate in photocopy is enclosed herewith. 3) After her death, her Maharis gave me a substituted wife, Chalia S Sangma. I was duly married to her according to Christian rights. A marriage certificate in photocopy is enclosed herewith. I also enclose herewith a copy of the certificate from Nokhma regarding the death of my previous wife and substitution of the present wife. 4) I desire and intend that the name of my wife be inserted as my nominee to be beneficiary of pension due to me after my death. I have six children from the present wife. The children of my deceased wife have all been grown up and settled. 5) In this connection reference may be made to Rule 48 of the Meghalaya Pension Rules Note 2 to Rule 48 says that “Marriage after retirement will not be recognized for the purpose of rules in this section”. WP(C)No.(SH)162/2012 Page 3 of 5 6) However, this note (2) to Rule 48 of the Meghalaya Pension Rules has been struck down as ultra vires by Shillong Bench of Guahati High Court in a case reported in GLT 2009 (II) 569: Binalish M Sangma vs. State of Meghalaya and others. A photocopy of this judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court is enclosed herewith for ready reference and perusal. 7) According to this decision of the Hon’ble High Court, my marriage after retirement is legally valid and I am lawfully entitled to nominate my present wife as the beneficiary of my pension after my death. 8) I hereby nominate Smti.Challia S Sangma to be my nominee for my pension. Photos of my wife Challia and group photo of my children from her are enclosed herewith. 9) In the above circumstances, I humbly pray for insertion of the name of my wife Challia S Sangma as my nominee in my pension papers with intimation to the AG and Treasury Officer. Sd/- Nonjing Marak, UC Constable, S/o Lt.Changnen Momin, Nogorpara Mahendraganj.” 6. Therefore, the present case is not the case for payment of family pension to the two wives. As stated above, as on today, there is only one legally married wife of (L) Nonjing Marak i.e. the present writ petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension of (L) Nonjing Marak after his death. It is fairly well settled law that pension is not bounty of the employer but it is the benefit earned by the employee under the Rules. Under Rule 48 of the Meghalaya Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1983, the wife in case of male officer is
Decision
entitled to receive the family pension. It is also clearly stated in the writ petition that the children of (L) Nonjing Marak through his first wife Smti.Walnish S Sangma had already attained majority and the children of the present petitioner are all minors. 7. It appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that the case of the present petitioner was not correctly appreciated, inasmuch WP(C)No.(SH)162/2012 Page 4 of 5 as, the present petitioner is not entitled to family pension while the first wife is surviving but the first wife is already expired; the petitioner being the surviving legally married wife of (L) Nonjing Marak is entitled to the family pension. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the present petitioner is entitled to receive or entitled to enjoy family pension of (L) Nonjing Marak. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant or pay the family pension to the present petitioner by preparing necessary PPO w.e.f. the death of (L) Nonjing Marak i.e. 21.04.2011 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 9. allowed. (cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9) With the above directions and observation, this writ petition is JUDGE WP(C)No.(SH)162/2012 Page 5 of 5