Telangana High Court
J.Padmabai, Nizamabad vs R.P.F.C, Hyderabad. 3 Ors on 15 November, 2021
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.23587 OF 2002
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.4/295/39991/FPS/2002, dt.12.08.2002 in not releasing full pension amount payable from January, 1993 to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of late Sri J. Venkat who had joined the services of APSRTC on 01.05.1972 and worked as such till the date of his death on 15.01.1993. During the life time of late Sri Venkat, he had become a member of the Provident Fund maintained by the 1st and 2nd respondents and also became a member of pension scheme and in his nomination form, he had mentioned the name of the petitioner as his nominee. After the death of Sri Venkat on 15.01.1993, the pension was payable from January, 1993, but the same was not released to the petitioner by the respondents. The petitioner therefore made representations to the 1st respondent, in response to which, the 1st respondent issued a letter dt.12.08.2002 stating that one J. Narsu Bai, i.e., the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition, had filed a claim form which was returned to her and that 50% of the pension is released in 2 the petitioner's favour further mentioning that the first wife is entitled to the whole pension amount. The petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, only the first wife is entitled to the pension during her life time after the death of her husband. The petitioner also denied that her husband ever had any second marriage with anybody much less the 4th respondent herein. Thus, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order and sought for a direction to release the full pension to her only.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, reiterated the above submissions mentioned in the affidavit and also referred to Rule 16(2)(b) and the Note thereunder of the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 to argue that only the first wife of the deceased employee is eligible for full pension and only after her death, the second wife of the deceased employee would be entitled to family pension. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others1 to argue that only the first wife of the deceased employee is entitled to family pension.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, Sri B. Manoj Kumar, has submitted that though as per the Family Pension Scheme framed under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and 1 AIR 2000 SC 735 : (2000) 2 SCC 431 3 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, only the first wife is entitled to the pension, but the petitioner and the 4th respondent were parties to a civil suit before the District Court and both parties therein had come to an agreement that each of them would be entitled to 50% of the pension. He has filed a copy of the decree of the District Court to this effect and he submitted that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner is entitled for the entire pension as she herself was the petitioner in the proceedings before the District Court. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are both first and second wives of the deceased employee and that the petitioner had filed a suit before the District Court for release of full pension to her, but during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Court, both wives had come to an understanding and by mutual agreement, a decree was passed granting 50% pension to each one of the wives of the deceased employee. This was taken into consideration by the Corporation in releasing only 50% of the pension to the petitioner. This Court does not find any reason to give any direction to the Corporation in any another manner.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that though 50% of the pension has been withheld by the Corporation, the same has not been paid to the 4th respondent either and therefore the same should be directed to be released in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for 4 respondents 1 to 3 did not have any instructions in this regard and he further submitted that the 4th respondent may not have filed any claim petition before APSRTC due to which, the pension has not been released in her favour. Nearly 18 years have passed after the impugned order and if 50% of the pension is being withheld by the 1st respondent to be paid to the 4th respondent and if the same is not paid to the 4th respondent only for the reason that she has not filed any claim petition, then it cannot retain the same with it. If the 4th respondent has not made any claim for pension, then the petitioner would be entitled to full pension.
7. The respondent Corporation is therefore directed to verify the record and if the 4th respondent has not made any claim or not filed any requisite form for release of the pension in her favour, then it shall forthwith release the full pension in favour of the petitioner herein and only after the demise of the petitioner, the family pension shall be payable to the 4th respondent.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Dt.15.11.2021 Svv