A PAPPAMMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Abimannan was working as Havildhar in Indian Army and retired as such from service and thereafter he was receiving pension. While so, he expired on 5.4.1994. There is no dispute that the present petitioner is the widow of late Abimannan. Though disputed by the petitioner, for the purpose of this writ petition, it is assumed that the aforesaid Abimannan had married for the second time during life time of his first wife and the third respondent is the daughter begotten through the second marriage.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition is relating to eligibility of the third respondent to receive 50% of the family pension payable after the death of Abimannan. The second respondent in Proceedings No.G4/VI/MISC/DSC-96 dated 29.2.96 has sanctioned payment of 50% of the family pension to the third respondent on the footing that she was begotten through the second wife.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the deceased had nominated her as the beneficiary in the pension papers. It is further contended that the second respondent has committed illegality in allowing payment of 50% of the pension to the respondent No.3. On the aforesaid allegation, prayer has been made to quash the proceedings dated 29.2.1996 and to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to pay the family pension and other benefits to the petitioner.