AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No.2.
Brief facts of the case are that one Daulatrao Kaner was appointed as Assistant Lineman and superannuated from service on 31.08.2003. Thereafter, he died on 14.05.2011. After his death, dispute arose regarding grant of family pension to petitioner-Leelabai or respondent No.6-Kamlabai. By impugned order dated 01.05.2025, pension was granted to respondent No.6. Due to aforesaid reason petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner was married to Daulatrao Kaner on 10.01.1983. Daulatrao Kaner got name of respondent No.6 nominated in service record. When petitioner learnt the said fact, she filed petition for declaring petitioner is legally wedded wife of Late Daulatrao Kaner. Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.09.1996 declared petitioner to be legally wedded wife of Late Daulatrao Kaner. Petitioner was not granted family pension and was asked to produced succession certificate. Petitioner approached Civil Court for same. Succession certificate was dismissed on ground that Court is not having jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order, appeal was preferred but same was also dismissed. Since, petitioner could not succeed in succession case, therefore, respondent No.6 granted pension to nominated wife namely Kamlabai. It is submitted that petitioner is legally wedded wife and there was no divorce between petitioner and deceased Daulatrao, therefore, petitioner ought to have been granted family pension.
Respondent No.1 to 5 are proceeded ex-parte.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that deceased employee nominated respondent No.6 in service record, therefore, according to nomination, pension is rightly being granted to respondent No.6. In view of same, no interference is called for and petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
Civil Court has given a declaration that Leelabai is married wife of Daulatrao Kaner and she was married to Daulatrao Kaner prior to Kamlabai. Family pension is to be given to widow or family members. Since, petitioner is declared to be legally wedded wife of Daulatrao Kaner and she is widow, therefore, family pension is to be given to petitioner. No document has been filed to show that there was divorce between petitioner and Daulatrao Kaner. Further, petitioner was getting maintenance amount and she was also declared to be wife. Nomination in favour of respondent No.6 is of not much value. Family pension can only be granted to a widow and family member and not to an outsider, if rule permits. Respondent No.6 is not blood relative or married wife of Daulatrao Kaner. Since, first wife is alive and there is no divorce between them, therefore, respondents had committed an error of law in granting family pension to respondent No.6/Kamlabai contrary to Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Merely not getting succession certificate from Civil Court will not be ground to deny family pension. Succession certificate is granted to legal heirs regarding inheritable estate of deceased. Pension is personal to a government servant and not inheritable. Family pension is dependable on service rules and not laws governing succession.
In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure-P/8) is quashed. Respondents are directed to grant family pension to petitioner/Smt. Leelabai.
With aforesaid, petition is disposed of.