Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bharti wd/o Gorakhnath Gaikwad, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. She sought directions against the State of Maharashtra, the Accountant General, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad Latur, and the District Health Officer to forward her proposal for family pension. The petitioner is the widow of Gorakhnath Jalbaji Gaikwad, who retired as District Extension & Media Officer on 28.02.1995 and died on 08.04.2019. During his service, her husband had recorded the name of his second wife, Sudharna Gorakhnath Gaikwad, as a dependent in his service book, but not the petitioner. The second wife predeceased him on 14.08.2017. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76 of 2019 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division Latur, seeking a declaration that she is the legal wife. During the pendency of the suit, her husband died, and a compromise was entered into between the petitioner and the sons from the second wife on 13.07.2019. A compromise decree was passed by the Lok Adalat on the same day, declaring the petitioner as the legal wife of the deceased. Thereafter, on 04.11.2019, the petitioner applied to the respondents for family pension, but the authorities did not act on her application. The court observed that the compromise decree is binding on the parties and the authorities cannot ignore it. The court directed respondent No. 4 (District Health Officer) to forward the proposal for family pension to the concerned authorities within four weeks, and respondent No. 2 (Accountant General) to consider and decide the proposal within eight weeks thereafter. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Family Pension - Widow's Entitlement - Compromise Decree - Binding Effect - The petitioner, widow of a deceased government employee, was not recorded as a dependent in the service book. She obtained a compromise decree from a Lok Adalat declaring her as the legal wife. The court held that the compromise decree is binding on the respondent authorities and they must consider her claim for family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The authorities cannot ignore the decree and must forward the proposal for family pension. (Paras 1-8) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - The High Court can issue directions to authorities to consider a claim for family pension based on a compromise decree, as the right to pension is a constitutional right under Article 300A. The court directed the respondents to forward the proposal for family pension within four weeks. (Paras 2, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was not recorded as a dependent in her deceased husband's service book but obtained a compromise decree declaring her as his legal wife, is entitled to family pension and whether the respondent authorities are bound to consider her claim based on such decree.
Final Decision
The court directed respondent No. 4 (District Health Officer) to forward the proposal for family pension to the concerned authorities within four weeks from the date of the order. Respondent No. 2 (Accountant General) was directed to consider and decide the proposal within eight weeks thereafter. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Family pension
- Widow's entitlement
- Compromise decree
- Binding nature on authorities
- Service book recording
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
