CHAND KANWAR Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking family pension which has been denied to her solely on the ground that her husband married her after he had retired from service.

(2.) Brief facts which require to be noticed are that the petitioner's husband Hanuman was posted as a Fitter in the Rajasthan Housing Board. He attained the superannuation on 31 st March, 2001 and was a bachelor. Till he attains superannuation, he was sanctioned pension and after retirement, he married the petitioner on 15.04.2005. The late husband of the petitioner informed the respondents about having got married and also submitted a marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Registration Officer. The official namely, the Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) noticed that the petitioner's husband had also informed the authorities that after his death, family pension be released in favour of his wife Smt. Chand Kanwar who is the present petitioner. However, he sent the marriage certificate to the Marriage Registration Officer on the ground that there are no signatures of husband and wife on the photograph. Thereafter vide another letter dated 28.02.2012, the said Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) of the Rajasthan Housing Board did not accept the contentions of the husband of the petitioner with regard to being made as his nominee on the ground that the decision of the State Government under Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 did not allow nomination after retirement. Petitioner's husband expired on 24th July, 2013 whereafter notice was served upon the respondents for releasing of the family pension. However, the said Senior Accounts Officer (Pension) vide his letter dated 28th July, 2014 has answered the notice for demand of justice refusing to release the family pension.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Bhagwani Devi versus Union of India and Ors., reported in 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 570 to submit that this Court has already held that even succession certificate is not open to be questioned by authorities relating to second wife of deceased claiming family pension and directions were issued as under:- '3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and find that petitioner married to the deceased and she is the first wife of the deceased having 9 children as per the statement of the respondent/s. The deceased solemnized second marriage with a lady in Assam, who is said to be in the name of Nomeena and impersonated in the name of petitioner, i.e., Bhagwani Devi. As per the report of Assam Police, it becomes a case of second marriage by the deceased. The petitioner was asked to receive succession certificate, which has been obtained by the Court. The certificate was then produced before the respondent/s yet she has not been extended benefit of family pension, moreso when, now Nomeena (Asmi lady) is not contesting the matter and even no document has been produced by the respondent/s to show her continuous claim like the petitioner.