1 day ago
Patna High Court Reconsiders Family Pension Claim of Second Wife
A woman asked for pension after the government employee she lived with died.
Officials had refused because he had married her while his first wife was alive.
The woman said they had lived together for many years and had six children.
The court found that the man had asked the government for permission to marry her in 1982.
Officials had not properly considered that application.
The court said the woman should not automatically lose recognition as his spouse because of this issue.
It cancelled the earlier rejection.
Government officials must now reconsider the claim and follow the court’s directions.
The Patna High Court quashed a 2019 rejection of a widow’s family-pension claim.
The woman said she and the deceased government clerk had six children together.
The court found officials had overlooked his 1982 application seeking permission to marry her.
It said her long relationship with the employee should not deny her spouse status in old age.
Authorities must issue a fresh, reasoned decision and consider pension from April 17, 2009, until her death.
- Who
- The Patna High Court, a former government clerk’s second wife, and Bihar state authorities.
- What
- The court quashed the rejection of the woman’s family-pension claim and ordered a fresh decision.
- Where
- The case concerned Bihar government service authorities, including the Flood Control and Water Resources Department in Muzaffarpur.
- When
- The husband died on April 17, 2009; the original rejection was dated February 5, 2019; the judgment was issued on August 25.
- Why
- Officials had rejected the claim over the lack of prior permission for the second marriage, but the court found they had overlooked a 1982 permission application and relevant circumstances.
Widow’s Claim and Court’s Reasoning
State Authorities’ Objections
Recognition as spouse
Widow’s Claim and Court’s Reasoning
The woman argued that her long-term relationship with the employee, six children, and the first wife’s lack of objection supported her claim. The court said she should not be denied spouse status in old age.
State Authorities’ Objections
The state argued that the claim had to be assessed under applicable service rules and government resolutions governing second marriages and family pensions.
Permission for the second marriage
Widow’s Claim and Court’s Reasoning
The court found that the employee had submitted an application on February 28, 1982, seeking permission to marry the woman and that officials had failed to consider this important fact.
State Authorities’ Objections
The state argued that the employee had not obtained the required sanction before entering into the second marriage.
Eligibility for family pension
Widow’s Claim and Court’s Reasoning
The court held that rejecting the claim solely because prior permission was not obtained was unsustainable and directed authorities to reconsider the claim, including pension from April 17, 2009, until the woman’s death.
State Authorities’ Objections
The state relied on the 1996 Finance Department resolution, which said a second wife married during the first wife’s lifetime would not receive family pension, although minor children from the second marriage could qualify until majority.
Key facts
- Court
- Patna High Court
- Judge
- Justice Purnendu Singh
- Original rejection
- February 5, 2019, by the chief engineer, Flood Control and Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur
- Permission application
- February 28, 1982
- Children
- Six children, including four daughters, were reported from the relationship
- Husband’s death
- April 17, 2009
- Relevant rules
- Rule 23(2) of the Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules, 1976, and a Finance Department resolution dated September 6, 1996
Quotes
Justice Purnendu Singh
Patna High Court judge who heard the widow’s petition
“Having regard to the facts of the present case and in order to do complete justice, I am of the view that the deceased employee and the petitioner had lived and cared for each other, post the death of the first wife and at the old age the petitioner should not be denied the ‘status of spouse’, which entitles her to receive family pension.”
indianexpress.com
“ensure to make payment of family pension to the petitioner, in accordance with law.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Allahabad High Court Upholds CRPF Constable’s Dismissal Over Remarriage
High Court Grants Posthumous Regularisation to Punjab Jail Warder
Chhattisgarh HC Protects Married Daughters’ Compassionate Job Rights
Supreme Court Rejects Post-Retirement Switch Between Pension Schemes
Jharkhand High Court Grants Job to Married Daughter
Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Recovery From Government Employee’s Widow
Bihar Orders Probe as Kishor Alleges Dustbin Procurement Scam
Jan Suraaj Plans Candidates for Eight Bihar MLC Seats
Surat BJP Leader’s Daughter-in-Law Found Dead; Son Accused
NIA Arrests Absconding Accused in Bihar AK-47 Case
