R RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Seenivasan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and third respondents and Mr. V. Vijayashankar, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he is a retired Headmaster. He was working at the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Naduvanapalli, Krishnagiri Taluk, Dharmapuri District. THE petitioner had married, B.Padma, in the year 1959. As the petitioner's wife, B.Padma, had suffered mental disorder, in the year 1963, she was not in a position to look after the petitioner and their children. In such circumstances, the petitioner had married B.Santha, the sister of his first wife, B.Padma, in the year 1963. THE petitioner had nominated B.Santha as a nominee to receive the Special Provident Fund. While she was working as a teacher at the Panchayat Union Primary School, Veppanapalli, B.Santha, had died in harness, on 14.7.91.

(3.) AT the time of the final hearing of the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was in receipt of family pension, authorized in the case of B. Santha, who was the second wife of the petitioner, vide PPO No.FA 595084. On verification, it was found that B. Santha was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Veppanapalli, and she had died while she was in service, on 14.7.91. The petitioner had married B. Santha while his first wife, B. Padma, was alive. As the second marriage had taken place after the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the second marriage is null and void in law. Therefore, the family pension already sanctioned to the petitioner, with effect from 15.7.91, was directed to be stopped and the family pension already paid was ordered to be recovered. The Treasury Officer, Dharmapuri, in his Letter No.11465/93/G.2, dated Nil, had sought for clarification from the office of the second respondent as to whether the family pension could be sanctioned to Selvi.Premalatha, daughter of B. Santha and if it could be paid to the petitioner, as her guardian. By a Letter No.Pen 20/IV/875, dated 25.8.94, it was confirmed that both the petitioner and his daughter, Selvi.Premalatha, were not eligible for the family pension as the second marriage is null and void.