Dismissed

Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Muralidhar Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. Mumbai and 4 Others

Bombay HC16 Sept 2014WP/3276/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for family pension. The court held that the petitioner, being a second wife during the subsistence of Murlidhar's legal marriage, could not claim pension under the relevant rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Muralidhar Gajbhiye Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP3276-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3276/2014

¶5

(PURNABAI WD/O MURLIDHAR GAJBHIYE VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & ORS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri R.S. Bhure, counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : SEPTEMBER 16 , 2014 .

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 12.07.2013 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner filed the original application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the capacity of the second wife of deceased Murlidhar. According to the petitioner, she was married to Murlidhar in the year 1991. Since the petitioner was not granted a share in the pension amount along with the first wife of Murlidhar, she had filed the original application in the year 2011 seeking a share in the retiral benefits of Murlidhar including pension. The Tribunal, however, by the impugned order dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order as also the relevant rules of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, it appears that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1982 provides that where there are more widows than one, the family pension is liable to be paid to the widows in equal shares. Admittedly, Murlidhar was married to Padmashree before the petitioner allegedly married Murlidhar in the year 1991. The marriage between Murlidhar

¶15

WP3276-14

¶16

¶17

and Padmashree was in subsistence in the year 1991 when Murlidhar allegedly married the petitioner. The Tribunal rightly considered this aspect of the matter and held that the petitioner cannot be said to be the widow of Murlidhar as she was not the legally wedded wife of Murlidhar. The Tribunal held, and rightly so, that Murlidhar could not have entered into the wedlock with the petitioner during the subsistence of his marriage with Padmashree. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to seek the benefit of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1982. The order is just and proper and calls for no interference. The judgment reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 330 ( Laxmibai wd/o Shripat Kumare Versus Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur & Others ) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case.

¶18

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

APTE

Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Muralidhar Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. Mumbai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Purnabai Wd/O Muralidhar Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. Mumbai and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Diamond Glass Works Pvt.Ltd.. Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust and 3 Others.

The Diamond Glass Works Private Ltd. Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust and Others.

Satyanarayan Swaroopnarayan Khandelwal Vs Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 4 Others

Shri Nitin S/O Govindrao Lunge Vs the Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Amravati Division, Amravati and 4 Others

Purushottam S/O Dadarao Deshmukh Vs Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University, through Its Registrar, Amravati and 3 Others

Shri. Jagadamba Mahavidyalaya Art, Com. and Science Achalpur, Thr Principal and Anr. Vs Shobhanath Kahsiprasad Dubey and Others