SANNAYALLAVVA AND ORS. Vs. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PV-1) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shriharsh Neelopant, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri H.R. Gundappa, learned counsel appearing for R3 to R7.

(2.) One Sri Balappa Uppar working as a peon in the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, died on account of the injury sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 24.01.2013. Hence, respondents 3 to 6 herein claiming to be the children of deceased and respondent No. 7 claiming to be the wife of deceased filed a suit O.S. No. 11/2013 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge, Gokak, seeking partition of the suit properties including the pensionary benefits and also sought for a direction to the employer of deceased to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to 6th respondent namely one of the son of deceased. Petitioners herein had been arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 since 1st petitioner also claimed to be the wife of deceased employee and petitioners 2 and 3 claiming to be the children of deceased employee. During the pendency of the suit, they entered into a settlement and a compromise petition was filed under Order XXIII r/w Sec. 151 of the CPC whereunder it was agreed that respondent Nos. 3 to 7 as one composite family unit would stake their claim for compassionate appointment and petitioners would receive the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee. Both the parties gave their consent for such a compromise being entered into. Accordingly, a compromise petition was filed and in terms of the compromise petition, decree came to be passed by the Civil Court on 07.06.2013 vide Annexure -E. On an application being filed by respondent No. 6 herein before 2nd respondent seeking for compassionate appointment, endorsement came to be issued by respondent No. 1 on 08.11.2013 Annexure -A informing the petitioner and 7th respondent that second wife would not be entitled to any pensionary benefits and the family pension and DCRG are to be shared equally between the first wife, her children and children of second wife (till they attain age of majority) and as such, they have been informed to obtain revised orders from the competent court.

(3.) Questioning the said endorsement and seeking for quashing of the same, petitioners are before this Court. Undisputedly, 1st petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee Balappa Uppar and second marriage is a void marriage under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which Act undisputedly governs both the parties. In fact, issue with regard to the right and entitlement to claim pensionary benefits by two wives, is no more res -integra. The said issue has been laid to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMESHWARI DEVI v/s. STATE OF BIHAR ( : AIR 2000 SC 735) whereunder it has been held that the children born to deceased Hindu employee from second wife who has been taken during the subsistence of the first marriage would be entitled to share in family pension and gratuity. It has been held by the Apex Court to the following effect: