RAJNI RANI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One, Sri Bhojraj Singh, was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/6/2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri he and died on 2/10/2021. Petitioner is claiming retiral benefits of Sri Bhojraj Singh on strength of being his nominee, as mentioned in service book as well as that she was staying with late Sri Bhojraj Singh for many years as his wife.

(2.) Sri Rakesh Kumar Rathore and Sri Shyam Narayan Verma, Advocates appearing for petitioner, submitted that petitioner is not disputing that Respondent-10, Usha Devi, was legally wedded wife of Sri Bhojraj Singh. However, she left him many years ago and allegedly married to another person, therefore, she is not entitled for retiral benefits of Sri Bhojraj Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that there was a proceeding initiated at the instance of Respondent-10 under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. wherein a compromise was entered and agreed amount was taken by Respondent-10 and thereafter she never claimed any maintenance allowance and as such she has abandoned her right, if any.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for Respondent-10, has referred relevant part of impugned order and contended that since Respondent-10 is legally wedded wife of Sri Bhojraj Singh and there was no divorce between them, therefore, only on basis of being nominee or that petitioner stayed with Sri Bhojraj Singh for a long time, would not sufficient to accrue all retiral benefits to her. Relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: