Tmt.k.rathinammal And Ors v. Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

Tmt.k.rathinammal And Ors v. Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

WP No.21246 of 2013 and WP No.18713 of 2014 | 20-06-2022

1. WP No.21246 of 2013 has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 10.09.2012 issued by the first respondentSecretary to Government, NCC Directorate [TN, P & AN], Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. WP No.18713 of 2014 has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 13.06.2014 issued by the first respondentPrincipal Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare Sports Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

3. The petitioner in WP No.18713 of 2014 states that she married one (late) Mr.C.Krishnan on 13.11.1972. The husband of the writ petitioner was working as Selection Grade Store Attender at NCC Directorate. The husband of the petitioner expired due to his ill-ness on 18.03.1999. The petitioner submitted her representation on 10.04.2010 to settle the pensionary benefits, including the family pension. The Assistant Director rejected the request of the writ petitioner on 03.05.2010 stating that the petitioner had divorced her husband late Mr.C.Krishnan and got remarried to one Tmt.Rathinammal (petitioner in WP No.21246 of 2013) and therfore, the petitioner-Tmt.Bakkiyam is not entitled for the family pension.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP No.18713 of 2014 made a submission that in the absence of any valid decree of divorce, the petitioner Tmt.Bakkiyam is to be construed as a legally wedded wife of late Mr.C.Krishnan and accordingly, the retiral benefits are to be settled, including the grant of family pension.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP No.21246 of 2013 filed by Tmt.K.Rathinammal, who also claims to be the legal wife of late Mr.C.Krishnan, made a submission that her husband late Mr.C.Krishnan divorced his first wife Tmt.Bakkiyam in the year 1973 itself and thereafter he married the writ petitioner-Rathinammal. Thus Tmt.Rathinammal is the legally wedded wife of late Mr.C.Krishnan.

6. To substantiate the abovesaid contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.21246 of 2013 relied on the findings of the Family Court, Salem, wherein the Court found that the first wife Tmt.Bakkiyam after divorce was living with one Mr.Kandasamy and therefore, the said Tmt.Bakkiyam is not enttiled for maintenance.

7. When two wives are claiming family pension in respect of the deceased employee, the status of the wives are to be declared by the Competent Court of Law. The High Court cannot conduct an adjudication in respect of such disputed facts, which all are to be decided based on the documents and evidences. Roving enquiry cannot be conducted in the writ proceedings under Article 226 fo the Constitution of India. The parties under these circumstances are bound to approach the Competent Court of Law for the purpose of an adjudication of the issues and to establish their rights. Only thereafter the Government Department will be in a position to form an opinion for grant of retiral benefits and also the family pension.

8. In these cases, Tmt.Bakkiyam (Petitioner in WP No.18713 of 2014) claims to be the first wife. However, Tmt.Rathinammal (Petitioner in WP No.21246 of 2013) claims that her husband late Krishnan divorced his wife Tmt.Bakkiyam and thereafter he married her. There are findings in favour of the said Tmt.Rathinammal also made by the Family Court.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.21246 of 2013 states that the documents are available to establish the customary divorce granted between Tmt.Bakkiyam and late Mr.C.Krishnan. However, all such documents are to be adjudicated by way of trial before the Competent Court of Law. Therefore, the decision taken by the Department is in consonance with the principles and there is no infirmity. Only if an appropriate declaration is granted by the Competent Court of Law and the issues between the two wives are resolved, the Department would be in a positon to settle the benefits and therefore, the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are at liberty to approach the Competent Court of Law for establishing their respective rights and only after reaching finality, they are at liberty to approach the Competent Authorities for settlement of retiral benefits, including the family pension.

10. With the abovesaid liberty, both the writ petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Eq Citations
  • REPORTABLE
  • LQ/MadHC/2022/3404
Head Note

Service Law — Family pension — Entitlement to — When two wives are claiming family pension in respect of the deceased employee, the status of the wives are to be declared by the Competent Court of Law — High Court cannot conduct an adjudication in respect of such disputed facts, which all are to be decided based on the documents and evidences — Roving enquiry cannot be conducted in the writ proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India — Parties under these circumstances are bound to approach the Competent Court of Law for the purpose of an adjudication of the issues and to establish their rights — Only thereafter the Government Department will be in a position to form an opinion for grant of retiral benefits and also the family pension — Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 21