Bombay High Court
Kamalbai Venkatrao Nipanikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 31 January, 2019
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, Ravindra V. Ghuge
1 wp 9933.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9933 OF 2016
1. Kamalbai W/o Venkatrao Nipanikar,
Age : 68 Years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o A/p Nipanikar Niwas,
Signal Camp, Latur,
Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The Accountant General - II (A & E)
Pension Wing Old Building
In front of Ravi Bhavan,
Nagpur.
3. The Education Officer,
Z. P. Secondary,
Latur.
4. The Head Master,
Shree Marwadi Rajasthan Vidyalaya,
Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Respondents
Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curie.
Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate h/f Shri S. K. Mathpati, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The Respondent No. 4 is served.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
2 wp 9933.16
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11256 OF 2016
1. Mandodhari W/o Uttam Mule,
Age : 65 Years, Occu. : Housewife,
R/o At Birsingpur, Post Dewulghat,
Tq. & Dist. Buldhana. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Finance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Agriculture, Dairy Development
Animal Husbandry and Fisheries
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Accountant General - II (A & E)
Pension Wing Old Building
In front of Ravi Bhavan,
Nagpur.
4. The Divisional Joint Director,
Agricultural Officer,
Division, Pune.
5. The Joint Director,
Agricultural Department,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
6. The District Superintendent Agricultural
Officer, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
3 wp 9933.16
7. The Sub Divisional Agricultural/
Soil Conservation Office,
Bhokardhan, Tq. Bhokardhan,
Dist. Jalna.
8. Taluka Agricultural Officer,
Bhokardhan, Tq. Bhokardhan,
Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents
Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curie.
Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate h/f Shri S. K. Mathpati, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12308 OF 2016
Smt. Savita W/o Gangaram Chimane,
Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Ridhi-Sidhi Apartment,
Samarth Nagar, Jalna. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Accountant General - II (A & E)
Maharashtra Nagpur.
3. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
4. Headmaster, Machodari
Vidhyalaya, Ambad,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
5. Smt. Sadhana W/o Gangaram Shinde,
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Houehold & Agril.,
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
4 wp 9933.16
R/o Mahankala, Tq. Ambad,
Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents
Shri P. M. Shah, Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curie.
Shri D. R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. A. V. Gondhalekar, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri Sambhaji S. Tope, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
Shri Ravindra S. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA,
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 05.10.2018
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 31.01.2019
JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangpurwala, J.) :-
1. The matter is placed before this Full Bench upon the directions of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The reference was made by the Division Bench of this Court referring the following issue to the full bench, "In cases to which, Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, apply whether the second wife is entitled to claim family pension ?"
2. We had requested Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned senior advocate to assist the Court. He graciously agreed to our request.
3. Mr. Sapkal, learned advocate h/f Shri S. K. Mathpati, ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 5 wp 9933.16 learned advocate for the petitioner led the arguments on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Irale Patil, the learned advocate also canvassed his submissions on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for petitioners canvassed following propositions :
A. Rule 116 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the "Pension Rules") provides for family pension. Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules provides that, if there are widows (more than one), the family pension is to be distributed amongst the surviving widows. The plain interpretation of these rules suggest that, if there are two or more widows, they are entitled for equal pension. If one of them dies, then her share should be distributed equal amongst the surviving widows. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of this Court in a case of Laxmibai Shripat Kumar Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad reported in 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 774. So also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Bilaspura and another Vs. Smt. Jaywantabai Wd/o Ramrao Kewoo in Writ Petition No. 467 of 2014. In the said case pension rules applicable to the railway employees were interpreted and this Court has held that the Hindu Personal law may not be strictly interpreted on the anvil ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 6 wp 9933.16 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, it was observed that, even though second marriage would be void as per Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, still that would not disable the widow out of the void marriage to be entitled for the family pension.
The learned counsel also rely on the judgment of this Court in a case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others reported in 2015(3) Mh. L. J. 813 and submits that, the second wife after the death of her husband is entitled for pension. It is held that, Rule 116 and its sub clauses are drafted with a definite object. The judgment in the case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others (supra) is confirmed by the Apex Court. Relying on the judgment in a case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others (supra) this Court in a case of Smt. Shakuntala W/o Gulabrao Jagtap Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 11839 of 2015 has also held that, the second wife would be entitled for the family pension under Rule 116 of the Pension Rules.
B. The learned counsel further submits that, if the appropriate legislature has passed an Act under Article 309 of the Constitution, the rules framed under the proviso will have effect subject to that act. But in absence of any act of the appropriate legislature on the matter, the rules made by the President or by such person as he may direct shall have effect.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::7 wp 9933.16 The rules must be in force. The learned counsel rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of B. S. Vadera Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 118.
C. The learned counsel submits that, when the literal interpretation of the rule is clear no addition or substitution of words is permissible. The Court would not innovate and amend or alter the statutory provision when the language is clear. The intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. A construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words has to be avoided. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the J. P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajsthan and another reported in AIR 2003 SC 1405. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Union of India and another Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal reported in AIR 1992 SC 96.
D. The learned counsel further submits that, if literal interpretation is not accepted that would amount to legislating and it would defeat the legislative provision and make it redundant. The same is not permissible. The literal construction without causing any variance to any provision of the rule is possible. The learned counsel rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Bajya Vs. Smt. Gopikabai and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 793.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::8 wp 9933.16 E. The learned counsel submit that, in the present cases, there is no specific or general reference to the personal law. By incorporating the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act more particularly Sec. 5, Rule 116(6) of the Pension Rules cannot be defeated. The rules are subject to constitutional provisions alone as per Article 309 of the Constitution and not to the personal law. It will not be possible to incorporate the provisions of personal law while interpreting the pension Rules. The learned counsel submit that, the personal laws are not the laws within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The personal law would not prevail over the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and others Vs. K. Devi and others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 76 and submits that, it is not that all consequences from void marriage are prohibited or are held to be declared illegal. The legitimacy is given to the children born out of void marriage by virtue of Sec. 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In such circumstances, void marriages are prohibited, but if the employee has two or more wives and if there is death of such employee, there is specific provision made under Rule 116(6)(a) of the Pension Rules for pension to the widows. Legislative intent is clear that employee may have performed second marriage contrary to Sec. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but after his death, widows cannot be prohibited from sharing the pension.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::9 wp 9933.16 F. It is further submitted that, no rule or provision of any other act, which has bearing on the pension rules can be incorporated for interpretation of the pension rules. If incorporation by any law is made, the purpose of framing Rule 116 of the Pension Rules would be defeated and Rule 116(6) of the Pension Rules would become redundant. Such interpretation is not permissible. The purposive interpretation is required to be made along with literal interpretation so as to give full effect to Rule 116(6) of the Pension Rules.
G. It is further submitted that, the Hindu Marriage Act was codified in the year 1955. The intention of the legislation is clear and, therefore, the provisions of family pension under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules is made available and payable to more widows than one. It is submitted that, unless a declaration is made about void marriage U/Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the competent Court, the woman with whom second marriage is solemnized continues to be the wife within the meaning of Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Deoki Panjhiyara Vs. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and another reported in 2013 AIR (SC) 346.
H. It is further submitted that, under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India the State is given wide powers to make special provisions for women's and children. The learned counsel ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 10 wp 9933.16 also rely on Article 39 of the Constitution of India to submit that, the State has to frame a policy towards securing that every citizen, men and women equally have a right to an adequate means of livelihood. The second wife cannot be thrown out without benefit of family pension of deceased husband. The learned counsel rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in (2002) 4 SCC 297, so also in a case of Abhiram Singh Vs. Commissioner reported in (2017) 2 SCC 629 and submit that, while interpreting the provision of a statute, it is to be seen that the intention of legislature is not frustrated. The Courts will reject that construction, which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some in exactitude in the language used. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Balram Kumavat Vs. Union of India reported in (2003) 7 SCC 628. Though some amendment has been made to pension Rules, however, rule 116(6) of the Pension Rules has not been amended. This shows the intention of the legislature.
5. Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent/State submits that, Rule 116 of the Pension Rules deals with family pension. Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules provides that where family pension is payable to more widows than one, then the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal share. It is only if, "Where" the family ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 11 wp 9933.16 pension is payable to more widows than one, then only it is to be distributed in equal share. For a widow at the first instance she should be legally wedded wife. The word, "where" has got its own importance. A second wife whose marriage is not legal cannot be said to be a widow so as to entitle her for family pension upon the death of the Government employee. The learned Addl. G. P. relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Chanda Hinglas Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2016(2) Bom C. R. 623. The learned Addl. G. P. also relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Indubai Jaydeo Pawar and another Vs. Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar and others reported in 2017(6) Mh. L. J. 816. The learned Addl.
G. P. also relies on the jdugment of this Court in a case of Deelip Shrihari Gadewar Vs. Government of Maharashtra and others reported in 2018(5) Mh. L. J. 129.
6. According to the learned Addl. G. P. the scheme of pension rules do not permit a second wife whose marriage is not legal and valid to be entitled for the family pension. Reliance is also placed on Rule 26(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules.
7. Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned senior advocate submits that, woman would not be a widow when the second marriage is void. The learned senior advocate relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 12 wp 9933.16 reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 submits that, even if there is presumption in favour of second marriage, still it does not make second marriage legal. The children born out of second marriage may be entitled to the share in the family pension, but the second wife is not entitled for anything. The Apex Court was considering case of family pension to second wife under the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules. So also considered the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules.
8. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(1) Mh.
L. J. 795 has held that, statutory scheme of service rules discourages second marriage. Pension is not payable when second marriage is void. Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of Pension Rules cannot be invoked by the second wife of a Hindu employee as said marriage is void. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the woman in void marriage is not a widow and the same has been interpreted by the Apex Court in a case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar (supra) and Chanda Hinglas Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). According to the learned senior counsel, the judgment in a case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Bilaspura and another Vs. Smt. Jaywantabai Wd/o Ramrao Kewoo (supra) was interpreting Rule 75 of the Railway Servents Pension Rules and would not be relevant for ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 13 wp 9933.16 our consideration and the same has been considered by this Court in a case of Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).
9. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the object of said Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules is to provide family pension to more than one widow in certain contingencies. A woman contracting marriage to a man during the lifetime of his first wife would not be entitled to family pension unless such marriage is permissible under personal law applicable to both the parties to the second marriage. As marriage with a second wife is void, it is no marriage in the eye of law. The learned senior counsel submits that, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Bilaspura and another Vs. Smt. Jaywantabai Wd/o Ramrao Kewoo (supra) though was confirmed and not interfered by the Apex Court, the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP has observed that, the SLP is dismissed leaving the question of law open as to whether second wife can lay claim to the pensionary benefits or any part thereof, despite Rule 21 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The learned senior counsel further submits that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar Vs. Indubai D/o Kashinath Shivram Chavan reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 836 has correctly interpreted the word, "where" in Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules. The ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 14 wp 9933.16 learned senior counsel further submits that, real reason for voidance of second marriage which is subsistence of first marriage is not dissolved. The offence of bigamy is made cognizable even prior to independence by virtue of the Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act. The Act is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of The State of Bombay Vs. Narasu Appa Mali reported in AIR 1952 Bom. 84.
10. The learned senior advocate further submits that, the wife includes only a legally wedded wife as per Sec. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned senior advocate relies on the judgment of this Court in a case of Bajirao Tambare Vs. Tolanbai Tonge reported in 1979 Mh. L. J. 693. The decision in a case of Bajirao Tambare Vs. Tolanbai Tonge (supra) is upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in a case of Yamunabai Adhav Vs. Anantrao Adhav reported in 1982 Mh.L.J. 87 (FB). This Court held that, the second marriage is void ipso jure.
It does not bestow status of legally wedded wife. It is only by legal fiction contained in Sec. 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the illegitimate children, for all practicle purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate.
11. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rules 111 to 116 of the Pension Rules as under :
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::15 wp 9933.16 THE MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1982
1. .....
2. .....
111. [Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity] (1) A Government servant, who has completed five year's qualifying service and has become eligible for service gratuity or pension under rule 110, shall, on his retirement, be granted retirement gratuity equal to one-fourth of his pay for each completed six monthly period of qualifying service, subject to a maximum of 16 ½ times the pay.
(2) If a Government servant dies while in service, the death gratuity shall be paid to his family in the manner indicated in sub-rule (1) of rule 112 at the rates given in the Table below, namely:-
Length of qualifying Rate of death service gratuity ( Less than one year 2 times of pay i )
(ii) One year or more but 6 times of pay.
less than 5 years.
(iii) 5 years or more but 12 times of pay less than 20 years.
(iv) 20 years or more Half of pay for
every completed
six monthly
periods of
qualifying
service, subject
to a maximum of 33
times of pay
Provided that the amount of retirement gratuity or death gratuity payable under this rule shall in no case exceed Seven lakh rupees:::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
16 wp 9933.16 Provided further that were the amount of retirement or death gratuity as finally calculated contains a fraction of a rupee, it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee.] (3) If a Government servant, who has become eligible for a service gratuity or pension, dies within five years from the date of his retirement from service including compulsory retirement as a penalty and the sums actually received by him at the time of his death on account of such gratuity or pension including temporary increase in pension and relief if any, together with the [retirement gratuity] admissible under sub-rule (I) and the commuted value of any portion of pension commuted by him, are less than the amount equal to 12 times of his pay, a residuary gratuity equal to the deficiency may be granted to his family in the manner indicated in sub-
rule (I) of rule 112.
[(4) The pay for the purpose of gratuity admissible under this rule shall be reckoned in accordance with rule 9 (36) (i):
Provided that if the pay of a Government servant has been reduced during the last ten months of his service otherwise than as penalty, Pensionable pay as referred to in rule 60 shall be treated as pay.] (5) For the purpose of this rule and rules 112,114 and 115 "family", in relation to a Government servant, means-
i) legally wedded wife or wives, including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant,
(ii) legally wedded husband, including judicially separated husband in the case of a female Government servant,
(iii) sons including step sons and adopted sons,
(iv) unmarried daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters,
(v) widowed daughters including step daughters ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 17 wp 9933.16 and adopted daughters,
(vi) father, including adoptive parents in the case of individuals
(vi) mother, whose personal law permits adoption,
(viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including step brothers,
(ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including step sisters,
(x) married daughters, and
(xi) children of a pre-deceased son.
112. Persons to whom gratuity is payable.
(1) (a) The gratuity payable under rule 111 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under rule 115.
(b) If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not subsist, the gratuity shall be paid in the manner indicated below:-
(i) if there are one more surviving members of the family as in clauses (i),(ii),(iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (5) of the rule 111 to all such members in equal shares;
(ii) If there are no such surviving members of the family as in clause (i) above, but there are one or more members as in clauses (v), (vi), (vii),(viii),
(ix) (x) and (xi) of sub-rule (5) of rule 111 to all such members in equal shares.
(2) If a Government servant dies after retirement without receiving the gratuity ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 18 wp 9933.16 admissible under sub-rule (1) of rule 111 the gratuity shall be disbursed to the family in the manner indicated sub-rule (1).
(3) The right of female member of the family, or that of a brother, of a Government servant who dies while in service or after retirement, to receive the share of gratuity shall not be affected if the female member marries or re-marries, or the brother attains the age of eighteen years, after the death of the Government servant and before receiving her or his share of the gratuity.
(4) Where gratuity is granted under rule 111 to a minor members of the family of the deceased Government servant, it shall be payable to the guardian on behalf of the minor after the guardian executes an indemnity bond in Form 28 and furnishes an affidavit about guardianship Note.- Hindu or a Christian mother shall not be required to execute an indemnity bond or affidavit being natural guardian.
113. Debarring a person from receiving gratuity.
(1) If a person who in the event of death of a Government servant while in service is eligible to receive gratuity in terms of rule 112 is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, his claim to receive his share of gratuity shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him, (2) If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), the person concerned-
(a) is convicted for the murder or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, he shall be debarred from receiving his share of gratuity which shall be ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 19 wp 9933.16 payable to other eligible members of the family, if any,
(b) is acquitted of the charge of murdering or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, his share of gratuity shall be payable to him.
(3) The provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) shall also apply to the undisbursed gratuity referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 112.
114. Lapse of [retirement gratuity/death gratuity].
Where a Government servant dies while in service or after retirement without receiving the amount of gratuity and leaves behind no family and-
(a) has made no nomination, or
(b) the nomination made does not subsist, the
amount of [retirement gratuity/death gratuity] payable in respect of such Government servant. [Under rule 111 shall lapse to the Government: provided that the amount of death gratuity/retirement gratuity, shall be payable to the person in whose favour a Succession Certificate in respect of the gratuity in question has been granted by a Court of Law.]
115. Nominations.
(1) A Government servant shall, on his initial confirmation in a service or post, make a nomination in Form 1 or Form 2, as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the [retirement gratuity/death gratuity] payable under rule 111:
Provided that if at the time of making the nomination-
(i) the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 20 wp 9933.16 of any person or persons other than the members of his family: or
(ii) the Government servant has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals whether incorporated or not.
(2) If a Government servant nominates more than one person under sub-rule (i), he shall specify in the nomination the amount of share payable to each of the nominees in such manner as to cover the entire amount of gratuity.
(3) A Government servant may provide in the nomination-
(i) that in respect of any specified nominee who pre-deceases the Government servant, or who dies after the death of the Government servant but before receiving the payment of gratuity, the right conferred on that nominee shall pass to such other person as may be specified in the nomination:
Provided that if at the time of making the nomination the Government servant has a family consisting of more than one member, the person so specified shall not be a person other than a member of his family:
Provided further that where a Government servant has only one member in his family, and a nomination has been made in his favour, it is open to the Government servant to nominate alternate nominee or nominees in favour of any person or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not:
(ii) that the nomination shall become invalid in the event of the happening of the contingency provided therein.
(4) The nomination made by a Government servant ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 21 wp 9933.16 who has no family at the time of making it, or the nomination made by a Government servant under the second proviso to clause
(i) of sub-rule (3) where he has only one member in his family shall become invalid in the event of the Government servant subsequently acquiring a family, or an additional member in the family, as the case may be.
(5) A Government servant may, at any time, cancel a nomination by sending a notice in writing to the Head of Office:
Provided that he shall along with such notice, send a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.
(6) Immediately on the death of a nominee in respect of whom no special provision has been made in the nomination under clause
(i) of sub-rule (3) or on the occurrence of any event by reason of which the nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause(ii) of that sub-rule, the Government servant shall send to the Head of Office, a notice in writing canceling the nomination together with a fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.
(7) (a) Every nomination made (including every notice of cancellation, if any, given) by a Government servant under this rule shall be sent-
(i) in case the Government servant is a permanent Gazetted Government servant other than a Gazetted Government servant whose pay and allowances are drawn by the Head of Office on the establishment bill, to the Audit Officer concerned : and
(ii) in any other case, including that of a Gazetted Government servant referred to in sub-rule(7) (a)
(i), to the Head of Office.::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
22 wp 9933.16
(b) The Audit Officer or the Head of Office, as the case may be shall, immediately on receipt of the nomination referred to in clause(a), countersign it indicating the date of receipt and keep it under his custody.
(c) (i) The Head of Office may authorise
his subordinate Gazetted
Officers to countersign the
nomination forms of Non-gazetted Government servants.
(ii) Suitable entry regarding receipt of nomination shall be made in the service book of the Non-
gazetted Government servant.
(8) Every nomination made, and every notice of cancellation given, by a Government servant shall, to the extent that it is valid, take effect from the date on which it is received by the Head of Office.
116. Family Pension, 1964.
(1) The provisions of this rule shall apply-
(a) to a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or after the 01st January 1964,and
(b) to a Government servant who was in service on the 31st December 1963 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, contained in the Government Resolution, Finance Department, No. PEN.
1464/3/64/X, dated 8th May, 1964.
1 [Note.- The provisions of this rule shall also extend, from 01st October 1977, to Government servants on pensionable establishment who retired /died before 31st December 1963 as also to those who were alive on 31st December 1963 but had opted out of the 1964 scheme] ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 23 wp 9933.16 (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule(4), where a Government servant dies-
(a) after completion of one year of continuous service, or
(b) before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service : or
(c) after retirement from service and was, in receipt of pension on the date of death, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to Family Pension, at a uniform rate of 30% of basic pay in all cases.
Explanation.-
The expression "continuous one year of service"
wherever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include less than one year of continuous service as defined in clause (b) (3) The amount of Family Pension shall be fixed at monthly rates and be expressed in whole rupee and where the Family Pension contains a fraction of a rupee, it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee :
Provided that in no case a Family Pension in excess of the maximum determined under this rule shall be allowed.
(4) (a) (i) Where a Government servant, who is not governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 (8 of 1923), dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
24 wp 9933.16 family shall be equal to 50 per cent of the pay last drawn or twice the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2), whichever is less, and the amount so admissible shall be payable from the date following the date of death of the Government servant, for a period for a period of ten years ;
(ii) In the event of death of a Government servant after retirement, the family pension as determined under sub-clause (i) shall be payable for a period of seven years, or for a period up to the date on which the retired deceased Government servant would have attained the age of 65 years had he survived, whichever is less:
Provided that in no case the amount of Family Pension determined under sub-clause (ii) of this clause shall exceed the pension authorised on retirement from Government service:
Provided further that where the amount of pension authorised on retirement is less that the amount of Family Pension admissible under sub-rule (2) , the amount of family pension determined under this clause shall be limited to the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule(2).
Explanation.-
For the purpose of this sub- clause, pension sanctioned on retirement includes the part of the pension, which the retired Government servant may have commuted before death.
(b) (i) Where a Government servant, who is ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
25 wp 9933.16 governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 (8 of 1923), dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50 percent of the pay last drawn or one and a half times the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2), whichever is less.
(ii) The family pension so determined under sub-clause (i) shall be payable for the period mentioned in clause (a):
Provided that where a compensation is not payable under the aforesaid Act, the Head of Office shall send a certificate to the Audit Officer to the effect that the family of the deceased Government servant is not eligible for any compensation under the aforesaid act and the family shall be paid family pension on the scale, and for the period, mentioned in clause (a)
(c) After the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a), the family, in receipt of Family Pension under that clause or clause (b), shall be entitled to Family Pension at the rate admissible under sub-
rule (2).
5. The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-
(i) in the case of a widower, upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier: and in the case of a widow, upto the date of death."
(ii) in the case of a son, until he attains the age of twenty-one-years; and
(iii)in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
26 wp 9933.16 four years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier:
Provided that if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-one years in the case of the son and twenty - four years in the case of the daughter, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely :-
(i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-
rule (7) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of twenty- one or twenty-four, as the case may be, and thereafter the Family Pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him/her for life ;
3[(ii) if there are more than one such children suffering from disorder or disability or mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid, in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder immediately above him/her ceases to be eligible :
Provided that, where the family pension is payable to such twin children it shall be paid in the manner set out in clause (d) of ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
27 wp 9933.16 sub-rule (6) of this rule.] 4[(iii) the Family Pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor except in the case of the physically crippled or disabled son/daughter who has attained the age of majority :]
(iv) before allowing the Family Pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy itself that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child ;
(v) the person receiving the Family Pension as guardian of such son or daughter 5[or such son or daughter not receiving the Family Pension through a guardian] shall produce every three years a certificate from a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled.
Explanation. -
6[(a) ---------]
(b) A daughter shall become ineligible for Family Pension under this sub-rule from the date she gets married.
(c) The Family Pension payable to such a son or daughter shall be stopped if he or she starts earning his/her livelihood.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::28 wp 9933.16
(d) In such cases it shall be the duty of the guardian 5[or such a son or daughter] to furnish a certificate to the Treasury to Bank, as the case may be, every month that
(i) he or she has not started earning his/her livelihood; (ii) in case of daughter, that she has not yet married.
(6) (a) (i) Where that Family Pension is payable to more widows than one, the Family Pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares ;
(ii) on the death of a widow, her share of the Family Pension shall become payable to her eligible child :
7[Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her.]
(b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a window but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of Family Pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner.
8[provided that on the share or shares or of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.] 9[(c) Where the deceased Government servant ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 29 wp 9933.16 or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of Family Pension which the mother would have received at the time for the death of the Government servant or pensioner had she not been so divorced:] 10[Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse but shall be payable to be other widow or widows and or/to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full to such widow or child.
11[(d) Where the family pension is payable to twin children it shall be paid to such children in equal shares :
Provided that, when one such child cases to be eligible his / her share shall revert to the other child and when both of them cases to be eligible, the family pension shall be payable to the next eligible single child or twin children, as the case may be];
(7) (i) Except as provided in sub-rule(6), the Family Pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time ;
(ii) If a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the Family Pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child :
12[(iii) Family pension to the children shall be payable, in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
30 wp 9933.16 elder immediately above him/her has become ineligible for the grant of the family pension:
Provided that, where the family pension is payable to twin children it shall be paid in the manner set out in clause (d) of sub-rule (6) of this rule]:
8) Where a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind more children than one, the eldest eligible child shall be entitled to the family pension for the period mentioned in clause(ii) or clause
(iii) of sub-rule (5) as the case may be, and after the expiry of that period the next child shall become eligible for the grant of Family Pension.
(9) Where Family Pension is granted under this rule to a minor, it shall be payable to the guardian on behalf of the minor, after the guardian executes an indemnity bond in Form 29 and furnishes an affidavit about guardianship.
Note.- Hindu or a Christian mother shall not be required to execute an indemnity bond or affidavit being a natural guardian.
(10) In case both wife and husband are Government servants and are governed by the provisions of this rule, and one of them dies while in service or after retirement, the family pension in respect of the deceased shall become payable to the surviving husband or wife and in the event of death of the husband or wife, the surviving child or children shall be granted the two family pensions in respect to the deceased parents, subject to the limits specified below, namely:-
(a) (i) if the surviving child or children is or are eligible to draw two family pensions at the rate mentioned in sub-rule (4), the amount of both the pensions shall be limited to 13[two thousand four hundred rupees] per ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 31 wp 9933.16 mensem ;
(ii) if one of the family pensions ceases to be payable at the rate mentioned in sub-rule (4) , and in lieu thereof the pension at the rate mentioned in sub-rule (2) becomes payable, the amount of both the pensions shall also be limited to 14[two thousand four hundred rupees] per mensem;
(b) If both the family pensions are payable at the rates mentioned in sub- rule (2), the amount of two pensions shall be limited to 15[one thousand two hundred rupees] per mensem.
(11) Where a female Government servant or male Government servant dies leaving behind a judicially separated husband or wife and no child or children, the Family Pension in respect of deceased shall be payable to the person surviving :
Provided that where in a case the judicial separation is granted on the ground of adultery and the death of the Government servant takes place during the period of such judicial separation, the Family Pension shall not be payable to the person surviving if such person surviving was held guilty of committing adultery.
(12) (a) Where a female Government servant or male Government servant dies leaving behind a judicially separated husband or wife with a child or children, the Family Pension payable in respect of the deceased shall be payable to the surviving person provided he or she is the guardian of such child or children.
(b) where the surviving person has ceased to be the guardian of such child or children, such Family Pension shall be payable to the person who is the actual guardian of such child or ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
32 wp 9933.16 children.
(13) (a) If a person who in the event of death of a Government servant while in service is eligible to receive Family Pension under this rule, is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, the claim of such a person, including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the Family Pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.
(b) If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in clause(a), the person concerned -
(i) is convicted for the murder or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, such a person shall be debarred from receiving the Family Pension which shall be payable to other eligible member of the family, from the date of death of the Government servant.
(ii) is acquitted of the charge of murder or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, the Family Pension, shall be payable to such a person from the date of death of the Government servant.
(c) The provision of clause (a) and clause(b) shall also apply for the Family Pension becoming payable on the death of a Government servant after his retirement.
(14) (a) (i) As soon as the Government servant enters Government service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Audit Officer, if he is a Gazetted Government servant other ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 33 wp 9933.16 than a Gazetted Government servant whose pay and allowances are drawn by the Head of Office on the establishment bills or to the Head of Office if he is a Non-gazetted Government servant or a Gazetted Officer whose pay and allowances are drawn by Head of Office on the establishment bills :
Provided that a Government servant holding a lien or a suspended lien on a non-gazetted service or post and holding a gazetted service or post in a temporary or officiating capacity shall furnish the details of his family in Form 3 to Head of Office:
(ii) if the Government servant had no family, he shall furnish the details in Form 3 as soon as he acquires family.
(b) The Government servant shall communicate to the Audit Officer or Head of Office, as the case may be, any subsequent change in the size of his family, including the fact of marriage of his female child.
(c) The Audit Officer shall, on receipt of the said Form 3, keep it in safe custody and acknowledge receipt of the said Form 3 and all further communications received from the Government servant in this behalf.
16[(d) As and when the disability referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (5) manifests itself in a child which makes him/her unable to earn his/her living, the fact should be brought to the notice of Head of Office/Audit Officer duly supported by a medical certificate from a Medical Officer, not below the rank of a civil Surgeon. This may be indicated in Form 3 by the Head of Office/Audit Officer. As and when the claim for family pension ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 34 wp 9933.16 arises, the legal guardian of the child should make an application supported by a fresh medical certificate from a Medical Officer, not below the rank of Civil Surgeon, that the child still suffers from the disability.];
17[(e)] The Head of Office shall, on receipt of the said Form 3, paste it in the service book of the Government servant concerned and acknowledge receipt of the said Form 3 and all further communications received from the Government servant in this behalf.
18[(f)] The Audit Officer or the Head of Office, as the case may be, on receipt of communication from the Government servant regarding any change in the size of family shall incorporate such a change in Form 3.
(15) The temporary increase in pension, and relief sanctioned by Government from time to time shall be payable to the family in receipt of a family pension under this rule.
(16) For the purposes of this rule-
(a) "Continuous service" means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment and does not include -
(i) period of suspension, if any, and
(ii) period of service, if any, rendered be fore attaining the age of eighteen years;
(b) "family", in relation to a Government servant means-
(i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant, 19[---- ].
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::35 wp 9933.16
(ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery, 20[ ----] and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery;
(iii) son who has not attained the age of twenty one years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty four years, including such son and daughter adopted legally before retirement 21[---].
(iv) dependent mother and father, in the order of that preference, having no independent means or source of economic sustenance, in the case of a 'single' Government Servant as declared by him in the Form-3A.
(c ) 'Pay' means-
(i) the pay as specified in rule 22 [9(36) (i)] , or
(ii) the pension able pay as referred to in rule 60 if the pay of the deceased Government servant has been reduced during the last ten months of his service otherwise than as penalty :
Provided that the element of dearness allowance which has been treated as dearness pay under rule 61 shall not be treated as pay for the purpose of this rule.
(17) Nothing contained in this rule shall apply to -
(a) a re-employed Government servant who had retired before the 1st January, 1964, from
(i) civil service on Retiring Pension or Superannuation Pension, or ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 36 wp 9933.16
(ii) Military service on Retiring Pension, service pension of Invalid Pension, and who, on the date of re-employment, had attained the age of superannuation applicable to the post in which he is re-employed;
(b) a military pensioner who has retired/retires from military service on or after the 1st January, 1964, or retires from such service on Retiring Pension, service or Invalid Pension and is re-employed in a civil service or post before attaining the age of superannuation :
Provided that for the grant of ordinary Family Pension such Government servant is governed by Army Instruction 2/5/64, as amended from time to time, or corresponding Navy or Air Force Instructions:
(c) a Government servant referred to in rule 67, who on absorption in a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government, or any other body, incorporated or not, is governed by the provisions of the family pension scheme of the corporation or company or body, as the case may be.
(18) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause
(b) of sub-rule (17),a military pensioner referred to in the aforesaid clause, who dies while holding a civil post in a temporary capacity, in the course of re-
employment, his family may be allowed to apt for the Family Pension admissible under this rule or the Family Pension authorised at the time of his retirement or discharge from the military under Army Instruction 2/5/64 or the of corresponding Navy or Air Force Instructions.
12. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 apply to the Government servants who are recruited on or before ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 37 wp 9933.16 31st October, 2005. Rule 6 of the Pension Rules provides that any claim to pension or family pension shall be regulated by the provisions of these rules in force at the time when a Government servant retires or is retired or discharged or dies as the case may be.
13. In the present matters, we are concerned with the entitlement of the second wife to family pension upon the death of the Government employee. For the purpose of family pension the word "family' will have to be interpreted. Sub Rule 5 of Rule 111 of the Pension Rules defines "family" in relation to the Government servant. Rule 111(5)(i) initially read as "wife or including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of male government servants". Under notification dated 18.01.2016 clause (i) has been amended and the word "wife" is substituted with the word, "legally wedded wife". The provision now is read as legally wedded wife or wives. Rule 111 deals with Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity. Rule 115 enables the Government servant to nominate one or more persons to receive the retirement gratuity/death gratuity. Proviso (I) to Sub Rule (I) of Rule 115 restricts the right of the Government servant to nominate any person other than a member of his family in case he has family. The provision would make it clear that unless wife is legally wedded wife as provided under Rule 111(5)(i) of the Pension Rules, the government servant has no right to nominate such a person. Rule 111(5) of the Pension Rules ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 38 wp 9933.16 excludes a wife that is not a legally wedded wife from the definition of family. If the marriage is not legal and valid, the said woman would not be brought within contour of the definition "Family". Proviso (ii) to Rule 115(I) enables the Government servant to nominate any other person if he has no family, but sub Rule 4 of Rule 115 of the Pension Rules further prescribes that if at the time the government servant had made nomination who had no "family" at the time of making it, same shall become invalid in the event of the government servant subsequently acquiring the "family". Reading Rules 111 and 115 of the Pension Rules con-jointly the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that a nomination can be made by a government servant only of a person who is member of the family, if the said Government servant has a family. The definition of family embodied in Rule 111(5)(i) specifically provides that legally wedded wife or wives only would be a member of the family. The one that is not a legally wedded wife is excluded from the definition of the term "family".
14. The family pension was initially governed by the Family Pension Scheme 1964 as contained in the Government Resolution dated 08th May, 1964. Same is incorporated in Rule
116. The nomenclature, "Family Pension" connotes payment of pension to the family, a woman who is not legally married cannot be included in the definition of family.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::39 wp 9933.16
15. The definition of the term family enshrined under Rule 111(2) is for the purpose of the Rules 111, 112, 114 and 115 viz the payment of gratuity and the nomination to be made. The Government employee has a right to make a nomination in favour of a person to receive the family pension also. Form III is required to be filled in by the Government servant giving details of the members of the family. Under rule 116(6)(b), the phrase "family" has been defined.
16. The definition of the word "family" as contemplated under Rule 116 of the Pension Rules means wife in the case of male Government servant and husband in the case of female government servant. Wife is used in singular term in contradiction to the words used in Rule 111(5)(i) of the Pension Rules. Prior to amendment Rule 111(5)(i) included wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the definition of family. However, under Rule 116(6)(b) the words wives is absent. The term 'wife' is used in singular sense, thereby leaving no scope for further interpretation. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that where the words are clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the Court to interfere or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the provision as is observed by the Apex Court in a case of J. P. Bansal Vs. State of Rajsthan and another (supra).
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::40 wp 9933.16
17. The definition of the phrase "family" as appearing in Rule 116(16)(b) will have to be interpreted considering Rule 116(16)(a)
(i) of the Pension Rules. Rule 116(16)(b)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules will have to be interpreted referring to the context, "where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal share." This sub rule will have to be interpreted as that "where" two or more widows are entitled for the family pension. For a lady to be widow at the first instance she has to be legally married woman. The concept and institution of marriage is governed by personal law. There may be instances where the second marriage may be legal and valid in that case two widows may be entitled for pension. While interpreting Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules, we need not import personal law, however, while considering the word "widow", it will be necessary that for a woman to be a "widow", she has to be at the first instance a legally married woman as per the law applicable to the parties. Rule 26 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules prohibits a Government servant from entering into or contracting a marriage with any person during the subsistence of his marriage. Proviso to Rule 26(2) of the M. C. S. (Conduct) Rules enables the Government to permit a Government servant to enter into or contract any such marriage as is referred in Clause
(i) or Clause (ii), if it is satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage and (b) ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 41 wp 9933.16 there are other grounds for so doing or if according to personal law, if second marriage is permissible, then the second wife would come within the definition of widow on death of a Government Servant. The second wife in general parlance would not be entitled for family pension, unless she is a legally wedded wife. A second wife, who is not a legally wedded wife would not be entitled for family pension under Rule 116 of the Pension Rules. However a second wife if is a legally wedded wife would be entitled for the family pension. It is in this context Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules, "where the family pension payable to more widows, than one" shall have to be read and interpreted Rule 116(6)(a(i) of the Pension Rules cannot be read dehors the concept of legally wedded wife. The same also can be found credence in the definition of family as appearing in Rule 111(5)(i) of the Pension Rules.
18. The interpretation of the term "family" for the purpose of gratuity and family pension cannot be different. The words and phrases appearing in a statute or rule ought to be given same meaning. It is well laid down that, the statute is governed by one spirit and policy and intended to be consistent and harmonious in its several parts and provisions.
19. It is said that meaning of the words and expressions used in a Act must take their colour in the context in which they appear. It is also well settled that the language of a statute ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 42 wp 9933.16 constitutes the depository or reservoir of legislative intent and in order to grasp its true meaning it is necessary to consider the sentence in its entirety. Meaning of certain words used in a section may be construed by attending to such other provisions of the statute as may tend to throw light upon them. When we are called upon to construe the term of any provision in a statute, we need not confine only to a particular provision, which falls for consideration. The Court has to consider other parts of the statute, which throw light on the intention of the legislature. The Apex Court in a case of the Balasinor Nagarik Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and others reported AIR 1987 SC 849 has observed, "as a general rule, single section, which is capable of more than one construction in the light of the words employed in it ought not to be interpreted singularly and without reference to other part of the enactments."
20. The interpretation of the rules and the statute, ought not to lead to a situation which would cause inconsistency unless it is unavoidable and inevitable.
21. The meaning of the term "wife" as used in Rule 116(6)(b) of the Pension Rules cannot be different than the one in Rule 111(5)
(i) of the Pension Rules.
22. The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Ramabai ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 43 wp 9933.16 Gulabrao Jamnik Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) while interpreting the words, "where pension is payable" in Rule 116(6)
(a)(i) of the Pension Rules has held that a woman whose marriage to a male Hindu government employee is void is not a widow for which benefit of Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules is incorporated and pension to such woman is not payable. The Division Bench followed another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Chanda Hinglas Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).
23. The another Division Bench of this Court in a case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Bilaspura and another Vs. Smt. Jaywantabai Wd/o Ramrao Kewoo considering Rule 75 of the Railways Services Pension Rules 1995 held that the second wife would be entitled for the family pension.
24. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Chanda Hinglas Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) so also the view of the learned Single in a case of Indubai Jaydeo Pawar and another Vs. Draupada @ Draupadi Jaydeo Pawar and others (supra) appears to be correct view. In a case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others (supra) , the learned Single Judge though referred to the judgment in a ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 44 wp 9933.16 case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar (supra) delivered by the Apex Court, however, it is observed by the learned Single Judge that, the Apex Court was dealing with Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules prohibit any Government servant enter in contract with a person having a spouse living, so also considered Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules prohibiting a Government servant having a spouse living from contracting second marriage and based on said provision, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that the Apex Court concluded about the second wife not entitled for family pension. However, similar, Rule 26 of the M. C. S. (Conduct) Rules that also prohibits Government servant having a spouse living from contracting second marriage was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge while deciding the case of Kantabai W/o Dhulaji Shriram and others Vs. Hausabai Dhulaji Shriram and others (supra).
25. The Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in a case of Raj Kumari and another Vs. Krishna and others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 511 has also observed that normally pension is given to the legally wedded wife of a deceased employee. Same view is taken by the Apex Court in a case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar (supra) and it is held that the second wife is not entitled for family pension.
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::45 wp 9933.16
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference as under :
"In cases to which Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 apply, the family pension can be claimed by a widow, who was legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Second wife, if not a legally wedded wife would not be entitled for family pension and if the second wife is legally wedded wife, then should be entitled for the family pension."
Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. :-
27. Considering that the law and the reports cited, have been exhaustively dealt with in the earlier portion of this judgment by my learned brother, I am not required to advert to the same, for the fear of repetition. However, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts in Kantabai (supra) in which, I had taken the view that the second widow would be entitled for family pension.
28. Kantabai had approached the Civil Court with a stand that she is the second wife of the deceased Dhulaji Shriram. Her two sons (both adults by now) born out of her relationship with the deceased Dhulaji were also before this Court. Dhulaji served in the Forest Department from 1981 onwards and had passed away on 14.06.1998. Hence, Kantabai ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 46 wp 9933.16 claimed pension. The first wife Hausabai and her two adult sons were the respondents in the suit.
29. It was contended before me that Rule 116(6)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 was applicable and the law laid down in Laxmibai vs. CEO, Zilla Parishad, 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 330 needs to be followed.
30. The first wife Hausabai had contended that the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act do not recognize a second marriage performed during the subsistence of the first marriage. The second wife, therefore, would not be entitled to any share in the family pension in view of the law laid down in Rameshwari Devi (supra). It was conceded that though the second wife should be deprived of any pension, the minor children of the second wife would be entitled for family pension till they attain the age of majority.
31. The second wife had canvassed that the Pension Rules, 1982 maintained the payment of family pension to widows more than one despite the 1955 amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act.
32. While considering these contentions, I had observed in paragraphs 13 to 19 in Kantabai (supra) as under :-
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::47 wp 9933.16 "13. Before I advert to the judgments cited, it is worth the exercise to refer to the position so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned. Prior to introduction of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955, the Bombay Civil Services Rules ("BCSR") were in force till the introduction of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
"(MCSR"). Rule 302(b)(ii) of BCSR is as under :--
"302(b)(2) The pension is allotted
--
(i) .........
(ii) failing a son, to the eldest widow for the same purpose; ...."
14. In BCSR Pension Rules, 1950 in Part II, Rule 20(A) defines the "family" to mean, " 'family' shall include the following relatives of the Government servant --
(a) wife, in the case of a male Government servant...." However, when it come to the Family Pension Scheme of 1964 under BCSR Pension Rules 1950, beneficiaries of pension were enumerated as follows :--
"III. Beneficiaries and duration :
6.(a) Widow or Up to the date of death widower - or remarriage whichever is earlier.
(b) Minor son - Until he attains the age of eighteen years.
(c) Unmarried Until she attains the age
daughter - of 21 years or marries;
whichever is earlier.
Note 1 Step children are not eligible for pension,
- under this scheme.
Note 2 Children adopted legally before
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::
48 wp 9933.16
- retirement are eligible for pension under
this scheme.
Note 3 In cases where there are two or more widows,
- pension will be payable to the eldest
surviving widow. The term 'elder' would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage.
Note 4 Marriage after retirement will not be - recognised for this scheme.
7. Pension will be payable to only one member at a time. It will first be admissible to a Widow or Widower and thereafter to a minor. ......"
15. In the Revised Pension Rules of 1950, with effect from 1-1-1975, the said Pension Scheme of 1964 was amended and introduced as "New Family Pension Scheme 1964". Rule 4(vi) thereof categorically provided for payment of pension to more than one widows. It reads as --
"4(vi). In case of two widows, it is payable to both in equal shares;"
16. Thus, it clearly emerges that "New Family Pension Scheme 1964" under the BCSR Pension Rules, 1950 provided for payment of pension even to two widows in equal share with effect from 1-1-1975. This is the position, despite the introduction of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
17. MCSR (Pension) Rules are of 1982. In the said MCSR, Family Pension Scheme of 1964 was continued. Rule 116(6) is germane to this case, which reads as under :--
116 (6)(a) (i) Where the family Pension is payable to more widows than one, the Family Pension shall be paid to ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 49 wp 9933.16 the widows in equal shares;
(ii) on the death of a widow, her share of the Family Pension shall become payable to her eligible child :
Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her.
(b) Where the deceased Government servant of pensioner is survived by a widow but is left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of Family Pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner.
Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.
18. Rule 117 pertains to the Family Pension 1950 under the MCSR. This has been repealed with the introduction of the 1964 Pension Scheme.
19. Both learned counsel are in unison to the extent that Rule 116 of the MCSR Pension Rules 1982 under the title "Family Pension Scheme 1964" is applicable to the case. The proviso below Rule 116(6)(a)(i) was introduced on 7-12-1991 and so is the case with the proviso under Rule 116(6)(b). From the phraseology in above said provision, it ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 50 wp 9933.16 is clear that the intent and object of paying family pension was to take care of more than one widows. It is consistently provided for in the above referred Rule that the family pension was to be payable to more than one widows in the event of there being such number of widows. The share of one widow on her death was to be passed on to her eligible child. If such deceased's widow was not survived by any child, her share of family pension was not to lapse but be passed on to other widows in equal share and if there was only one surviving widow, in full to her."
33. I had, therefore, considered the Revised Pension Rules, 1950 that were brought into effect from 01.01.1975 by amending the Pension Scheme of 1964 with the introduction of the new Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Rule 4 (vi) specifically provided that "In case of two widows, it is payable to both in equal shares." This was the position under the new pension scheme though the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 rendered a second marriage void if contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage.
34. It needs mention that insofar as the opening sentence of Rule 116(6)(a)(i) under the 1982 Rules, "Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one" is concerned, the learned Advocates representing the rival sides in Kantabai (supra), had not focused on these words and especially the word "where".
::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::51 wp 9933.16
35. I find it appropriate to observe that in Kantabai (supra), the learned Advocate for the second wife relied upon Rule 4(vi) of the New Family Pension Scheme, 1964 under the BCSR Pension Rules, 1950 which was made effective from 01.01.1975. It was canvassed that under Rule 4(vi), if there were two widows, pension would be payable to both in equal shares. This was not contradicted by the learned Advocate representing the first wife.
36. Rule 34 of the Pension Rules of 1950 framed under the Bombay Civil Services Rules reads as under :-
"34. Except as may be provided by a nomination under Rule 35 :-
(a) a pension sanctioned under this section will be allowed :-
(i) to the eldest surviving widow, if
the deceased is a male Government
servant or to the husband if the
deceased is a female Government servant;
(ii) failing a widow or husband as the case may be, to the eldest surviving son;
(iii)failing (i) and (ii) to the eldest surviving unmarried daughter;
(iv) these failing, to the eldest widowed daughter, and (b), in the event ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 52 wp 9933.16 of no pension becoming payable under clause (a), the pension may be granted :-
1. to the father;
2. failing the father, to the mother;
3. failing the father and the mother to the eldest surviving brother below the age of 18;
4. these failing, to the eldest surviving unmarried sister;
5. failing (1) to (4), to the eldest surviving widowed sister.
Note:- The expression "eldest surviving widow" occurring in clause (a)
(i) above should be construed with reference to the seniority according to the date of marriage with the Government servant and not with reference to the age of the surviving widows."
37. As such, Rule 34(a)(i) provided payment of pension to the eldest surviving widow. The New Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was introduced on 01.01.1964. Clause 4(vi) provided for payment of pension, in case of two widows, to both the widows in equal shares. This was after the introduction of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As such, the earlier Rule 34 under the Pension Rules of 1950 underwent a change and considering the number of widows, the pension was made payable in equal shares. The revised pension rules brought into effect from ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 53 wp 9933.16 01.01.1975, do not indicate any deviation from the payment of pension to two or more widows in equal shares.
38. Rule 111 under the 1982 Rules provides for the payment of gratuity. For the purpose of Rule 111, 112, 114 and 115, a "family" in relation to a Government servant would include a wife or wives, including a judicially separated wife or wives, in the case of a male government servant. Rule 112 provides for the payment of gratuity to one or more surviving members of the family as in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (5) under Rule 111, to all such members in equal shares. Clause (i) under Rule 111(5) was subjected to an amendment on 18.01.2016 by which, the word "wife"was replaced by the word "legally wedded wife". This would, therefore, apply even to the word "wives". Since a Government servant professing Hinduism is permitted to have only one legally wedded wife, the substitution introduced on 18.01.2016, will have to be interpreted as being the intention of the Legislature that only a legally wedded wife would get pension. This would apply mutatis mutandis to Rules 112 and 116.
39. The view taken by me in Kantabai (supra) was sustained by the Honourable Supreme Court vide it's order dated 04.09.2015, passed in Special Leave to Appeal No.5703/2014. The judgment delivered in Kantabai (supra) and the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench in the matter of Union ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 54 wp 9933.16 of India vs. Smt.Jaywantabai (supra) was considered by the learned Division Bench in Smt.Shakuntala w/o Gulabrao Jagtap vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.11839/2015 (Bombay), decided on 12.07.2017. The learned Division Bench concluded that though the second marriage would be void when the first marriage is subsisting under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a second widow would be entitled for pension in equal share under Rule 116 of the 1982 Rules in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC
188.
40. After I had delivered the judgment in Kantabai (supra), the Division Bench at Nagpur delivered the judgment on 26.11.2015 in Chanda Hinglas Bharati vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2016 (2) Bom. C.R. 623, which has interpreted Rule 116 and especially the opening sentence "where the family pension is payable to more widows than one". It was, therefore, concluded that such pension would be payable to more than one widow if the deceased employee professes Muslim religion and would also be payable in the case of Hindu widows, if the marriage was performed prior to 18.05.1955 when the Hindu Marriage Act was introduced. However, Rule 4 (vi) as found under the new pension scheme 1964 under the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1950 and the judgment of the Honourable ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 55 wp 9933.16 Supreme Court in Badshah (supra) were not cited before the learned Division Bench in Chanda Bharati (supra).
41. In Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188, decided on 18.10.2013, it was intended that a broader meaning should be given to the provisions of law when it comes to ensuring life with dignity for a woman who may have been enticed or defrauded by a male in marrying him rendering her to be a second wife. The Honourable Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that a construction/ interpretation of a provision which reduces the legislation to futility should be avoided and a bolder construction based on the view that the Parliament would legislate for the purpose of giving the provision an effective result, should be opted for.
42. The observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraphs 16, 18, 19 and 20 of Badshah (supra) read thus:-
"16. The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes patterns of behaviour. It reflects the values of society. The role of the Court is to understand the purpose of law in society and to help the law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a living organism. It is based on a given factual and social reality that is constantly changing. Sometimes change in law precedes societal change and is even intended to stimulate it. In most cases, however, a change in law is the result of a change in social reality. Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too. Just as change in social reality is the law of life, responsiveness to change in social reality is the life of the law. It ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 56 wp 9933.16 can be said that the history of law is the history of adapting the law to society's changing needs. In both constitutional and statutory interpretation, the Court is supposed to exercise discretion in determining the proper relationship between the subjective and objective purpose of the law.
18. The Court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply omissions, correct uncertainties and harmonize results with justice through a method of free decision
--"libre recherché sceintifique" i.e. "free Scientific research". We are of the opinion that there is a non-rebuttable presumption that the Legislature while making a provision like section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, to fulfill its Constitutional duty in good faith, had always intended to give relief to the woman becoming "wife" under such circumstances. This approach is particularly needed while deciding the issues relating to gender justice. We already have examples of exemplary efforts in this regard. Journey from Shah Bano to Shabana Bano guaranteeing maintenance rights to Muslim women is a classical example.
19. In Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga vs. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, (AIR 2005 SC
422), the right of another woman in a similar situation was upheld. Here the Court had accepted that Hindu marriages have continued to be bigamous despite the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955. The Court had commented that though such marriages are illegal as per the provisions of the Act, they are not 'immoral' and hence a financially dependent woman cannot be denied maintenance on this ground.
20. Thus, while interpreting a statute the Court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon Case [(1584) 3 Co Rep 7a] which became the ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 57 wp 9933.16 historical source of purposive interpretation.
The Court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. Finally, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded in paragraph 22 in Badshah case (supra) that "In taking the aforesaid view, we are also encouraged by the following observations of this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal vs. Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC 70 :- "The brooding presence of the Constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause - the cause of the derelicts". (Emphasis supplied).
44. I concur with the view expressed by my esteemed ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 58 wp 9933.16 brother Justice Gangapurwala concluding that a woman, other than the widow (legally wedded wife), would not be entitled for pension in any share and that her minor children would be entitled for her share subject to the prescription under Rule 116(6)(a)(i) and Rule 116(b) of the 1982 pension rules, owing to the amendment introduced on 18.01.2016 by which the word "wife" was replaced by the words "legally wedded wife". This amendment was introduced after I had delivered the judgment in Kantabai (supra).
45. Nevertheless, I hold the view that both the widows (or more) would be entitled to equal shares of pension from the introduction of the 1964 New Pension Scheme, till the introduction of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, in view of Rule 4(vi) and Badshah (supra). Hence, the view taken in Kantabai (supra) can be said to be applicable till the introduction of the 1982 Rules in view of the amendment dated 18.01.2016 by which the word "wife" was replaced by the words "legally wedded wife". I, therefore, deem it appropriate to hold that if any widow or widows are already being paid pension in equal shares, owing to the judgments delivered by the High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in Badshah (supra), they should not be deprived of such shares in view of this judgment.
Per S. M. Gavhane, J. :-
46. Perused the provisions and gone through the ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 59 wp 9933.16 decisions relied upon by the parties which have been referred in detail in earllier portion of the judgment of my learned brother Justice S. V. Gangapurwala. I have read the judgment authored by learned brother Justice S. V. Gangapurwala, as well as learned brother Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge who concurred with the view expressed by learned brother Justice S. V. Gangapurwala concluding that a woman other than widow (legally wedded wife) would not be entitled for pension in equal share and that her minor children would be entitled for her share subject to the prescription under Rule 116 (6) (a) (i) and Rule 116 (6)(b) of the Pension Rules.
47. Considering relevant pension Rules particularly Rules, 111, 112, 114, Clause (I) under Rule 111 (5) amended on 18.01.2016 by which the word 'wife' was replaced by the word "legally wedded wife" and Rule 116 (6) (a) (I) referred in earlier part of the judgment and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar (supra), wherein it was considered that the woman in void marriage is not a widow, I concur with the view expressed by my learned brother Justice S. V. Gangapurwala that the second wife in general parlance would not be entitled for family pension unless she is legally wedded wife. A second wife who is not legally wedded wife would not be entitled for family pension under Rule 116 of the Pension Rules. However, a second wife if is legally wedded wife would be entitled for family pension, Rule 116 (6) (a) (I) of the Pension ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 ::: 60 wp 9933.16 Rules cannot be read dehors the concept of legally wedded wife and that the view taken by the division bench in the case of Chanda Hinglas Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik (supra) and the view of the learned single Judge in the case of Indubai Jaydeo Pawar and another (supra) appears to be correct view.
Sd/-
[S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] Sd/-
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] Sd/-
[S. M. GAVHANE, J.] bsb/Jan. 19 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 20:53:13 :::