NANBAI RATHORE Vs. MEENA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal preferred by the plaintiff was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Shri Jairam Prsaad Rathore while working in Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited as Supervisor died in harness on 26.6.2009. PlaintiffNanbai Rathore is admittedly first wife of the deceased servant, whereas defendant No.2 Meena Bai, who died during pendency of second appeal, married with deceased servant Jairam Prsaad Rathore on 15.5.1978 during subsistence of first marriage with Nanbai. It is admitted fact on record that dispute arose between the plaintiff (first wife) and defendant No.2 (second wife) with regard to all retiral dues except pension, which was settled amicably by entering into compromise between the parties vide Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, by which the plaintiff and defendant No.2 both are entitled for 1/2 share in retiral dues of deceased servant Jairam Prsaad Rathore. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit stating interalia that she being legally weeded wife of deceased servant Jairam Prsaad Rathore is entitled for entire pension in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter called as "the Rules of 1976"), which the trial Court granted in her favour, but on appeal being preferred by defendant No.2, the first appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that each of them i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.2 are entitled for 1/2 share in the amount of pension, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff, in which substantial questions of law have been formulated and setout in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr.Anil S. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that defendant No.2, who is admittedly second wife of deceased servant Jairam Prsaad Rathore is also entitled for 1/2 share in the amount of pension, which is contrary to subrule (1), (6) and (8) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside and that of the trial Court be restored.