BINALISH M SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the petitioner, who married the deceased pensioner after his retirement from service, is entitled to payment of the family pension under the provisions of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983, is the moot point in this writ petition.

(2.) NONE appears for the respondent No. 5 despite service of notice upon her through substituted service by paper publication. The controversy arose in this manner. The late Misorsing T. Sangma, was serving as Forester-I under the Department of Forest, Government of Meghalaya till 1. 12. 1995 when he retired from service on his superannuation. He died on 9. 9. 2002. It would appear that after his retirement from service, he had contracted a second marriage with the petitioner on 14. 1. 1996. According to the petitioner, she is the legally married wife of the deceased and is his heir according to Garo Customary Law of Inheritance. However, when she found that her husband did not nominate anyone from his family to receive his pension, etc. , she applied for and obtained a Succession Certificate (Annexure-III) from the Court of Additional District Magistrate, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. On the basis of this certificate, she filed the application dated 15. 1. 2003 to the Accountant General (A and E), Meghalaya (respondent No. 3) through the Treasury Officer, Williamnagar (respondent No. 4) for payment of the family pension to her. Even after submitting all the necessary documents, no payment has been made to her. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by her for payment of the family pension of her deceased husband.

(3.) THE writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents and the Accountant General (A and E), Meghalaya by filing their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The common stands taken by the answering respondents is that though the petitioner admittedly obtained Succession Certificate from a competent court of jurisdiction, when the first wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Starline G. Momin (respondent No. 5) is still alive, the second wife like the petitioner is barred by Rule 48 (1) of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983 ("the Rules" for short) from receiving the family pension of the deceased and that Note 2 to Rule 48 of the Rules, in any case, comes in the way of her claim for pension as she contracted her marriage with the deceased after his retirement. Thus, both the answering respondents contend that the writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.