Petitioner, who retired in 2014, sought family pension for his second wife, married in 2019 after his first wife died. The court held that the State Pension Scheme does not recognize marriages contracted after retirement, relying on precedent, and dismissed the writ petition.
None. The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16736 of 2022
======================================================
Ram Sevak Ram Son of Late Kishuni Mahto, Resident of Village- Pachtaki, Warde No. 04 P.O.- Pachtaki Yadu, P.S.- Kbairgania, District -Sitamarhi, At present residing Mohalla- Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, Adv. For the State : Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, SC 22 For the Accountant General : Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, SC (I.A. & A.D.) =======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-12-2023
Heard Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Raghwendra Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-22 for the State. Accountant General, Bihar is represented by Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, learned counsel.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16736 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023 2/3
Patna High Court CWJC No.16736 of 2022 dt.21-12-2023 3/3
April 1964”.
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 7092 of 2016), decided on 14.11.2017, whereby the Bench while considering the identical matter has been pleased to hold as follows:-
“…………….6. Having considered the matter, the Court is unable to intervene for the reason that the policy of the State Government does not permit payment of family pension to the second wife. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner herself claims to be the second wife and just because the first wife has died, her status will not change and she will not become the first wife, though she may be the only wife/widow now living.
7. In view of the aforesaid provision, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.”
the parties and after going through the Pension Scheme noted hereinabove, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and accordingly the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 22.12.2023 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a pension scheme can validly exclude family pension benefits for a spouse married after the retiree has superannuated.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to include his second wife in the pension payment orders despite her marriage occurring post-retirement.
Whether the High Court can intervene to direct the state authorities to grant family pension contrary to existing scheme provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Distinguished¶24
Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 7092 of 2016)
Ram Sevak Ram
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
