SUKA NAYAK ALIAS BEWA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which needs determination in the present writ application is as to whether 'two widows' of a Government employee are entitled to receive family pension in consonance with Rule 49(6)(i) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules, 1992') read with Rule 56 (6)(a)(i) of the said Rules. For the sake of brevity, the aforesaid two rules are quoted herein below:

(2.) IT is no more res integra that in consonance with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act 25 of 1955), for a lawful marriage the necessary condition required is, neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage. The marriage in contravention of this condition would be null and void. Similarly in consonance with Rule 24 (2) of the Orissa Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959, no Government servant having a spouse living can enter into or contract a marriage with any person. The proviso to the said rule reads as follows :

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, carefully scrutinised different provisions of the Pension Rules vis -a -vis the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Service conditions of the Govt. employees. It is the duty of the Court, whenever it is possible to do so, to construe provisions which appear to conflict with each other, so that they harmonise. It is well settled that if two constructions are possible, the Court must adopt that which will implement and which will ensure the smooth and harmonious working of the Act or the Rule and reject that which will stultify the apparent intention and, therefore, eschew the other which leads to absurdity or gives rise to practical inconvenience or makes well -established provisions of law nugatory. [See AIR 1994 SC 1775, Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and Anr.).