Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: H.S. Thangkhiew, J.  directed respondents 1 and 2 to substitute the name of petitioner in place of the deceased wife and directed them to communicate the same with respondent 3 for issuance of authorization for payment of pension.

The deceased husband of the petitioner worked as havaldar under respondent 2 and retired from service. After the death of his first wife, he married the petitioner, and out of the wedlock a female child was born. Thereafter the deceased employee had filed a representation to the authorities for the inclusion of the name of the petitioner and the child for the benefit of pension, but the said representation was not replied leading to the filing of a Writ Petition for necessary directions. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, he expired, after which the said writ petition was withdrawn and petitioner being lawfully wedded wife filed this petition.

Learned counsel of the petitioner S. Bhattacharjee, submitted that the petitioner should not be denied the pension as of Note (2) of Rule 48 of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1983, permits post-retiral spouses and children born/adopted legally after retirement to be eligible for family pension. She further submitted that respondents had admitted the request of family pension and had informed the Accountant General.

Learned Additional Senior GA appearing on behalf of respondents 1 & 2 did not refute the submissions. He further referred to the letter issued by the Office of the Accountant General, wherein it was stated that change of nomination for family pension the deceased would depend upon the orders passed by this Court.

As there was no dispute regarding the marital status of the petitioner with regards to the deceased employee, it was directed that the name of the deceased wife be substituted with the name of the petitioner and same to be communicated to respondent 3 for issuance of authorization for payment of pension. The name of the child out of the said wedlock was also to be inserted.[Marcyana N. Marak v. State of Meghalaya, 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 89, decided on 15-05-2019]