Madras High Court Grants Family Pension To Woman In Void Second Marriage Based On Nomination
The writ petition before the Madras High Court was filed seeking the quashing of the order passed by the Directorate of Pension.
The Madras High Court has granted family pension to a woman who married the deceased employee during the subsistence of his first marriage. The High Court took note of the fact that the deceased employee had not nominated any other person other than his second wife to receive his family pension.
The writ petition before the Madras High Court was filed seeking the quashing of the order passed by the Directorate of Pension and consequently a direction to the Official respondents to provide the family pension to the petitioner with arrears from the date of death of her husband i.e., from October 7, 2022 and other monetary benefits within a stipulated period.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Kumaresh Babu noted,”...the deceased employee had not nominated any other person other than the petitioner to receive his family pension even in the nominee form pertaining to the family pension benefits scheme, where petitioner’s name alone has been included. Even during the life time of the deceased employee, the petitioner had been living with the deceased employee which would substantiate the nomination made by the deceased employee in the appropriate form..”
Advocate Karunanidhi represented the Petitioner while Special Government Pleader F.Deepak represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The claim of the petitioner was that she was the second wife of the deceased employee, who died on January 7, 2022. Even though she married the deceased employee during the subsistence of the first marriage, it was submitted that the first wife had died in 2018 and she had been living along with the deceased employee as his first wife had also deserted him. It was claimed that the petitioner had taken care not only of her own child but also of the children born to the first wife.
It was submitted that the petitioner's name was mentioned as the nominee in the nominee column. However, when the petitioner applied for sanction of the family pension, the respondents, by the impugned proceedings, sought for submission of a succession certificate from the Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents to grant family pension to her.
Reasoning
Taking note of the fact that a second marriage, during the subsistence of a valid first marriage, is a void marriage, the Bench held that the respondents were right in contending that the request of the petitioner to grant a family pension to her should not be entertained. “But however considering the facts of the present case, it is evident that the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner for receipt of his death cum gratuity benefits in full, which is also not disputed…”, it added.
The Bench also noticed that during the life time of the deceased employee, the petitioner had been living with the deceased employee and this substantiated the nomination made by the deceased employee.
Thus, in light of such facts and circumstances, the Bench set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner as eligible. “Such exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Chellathai v. The Joint Director (Case No.: W.P.(MD).No.2810 of 2024)