Nagpur: Justice Avinash Gharote and Justice Mukulika Jawalkar, at the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court have allowed the writ petition filed by Radha, the daughter of an employee of Zilla Parishad, Wardha, Dashrath Warghane, who has been denied a share in her father’s pension.
Through a communication, rejection of her claim was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent-Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Wardha Zilla Parishad, on March 31, 2023. This impugned communication was the subject matter of challenge in the petition. The petitioner was born to Warghane from his second wife during the period when his first wife was also alive.
Gold Rate
Wednesday 26Feb. 2025
Opposing the petition, it was contended by the respondent-ZP’s counsel, D R Bhoyar that in view of the definition of ‘family’ contained in Rule 116 (16) (b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the child born from the second marriage was not eligible to have share in father’s pension. He also placed reliance upon the corrigendum of November 3, 2008, Clause 12 in support of his contention.
While quashing and setting aside the impugned communication, the High Court has pointed out that issue in this regard is no longer available for legal debate (res integra) and is already decided by the Supreme Court decisions in the cases — Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and others — AIR 2000 SC 735 and Union of India and another v. V R Tripathi — AIR 2019 SC 666, in which it has been held that the child born from the second marriage has legitimacy, in view of the language of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This clearly indicates, according to the HC, that the child from second marriage would have entitlement to the share in the pension and other retirement benefits of an employee in proposition to what has been stated in Section 16 of the HM Act read with the provisions of the Succession Act.
The High Court has remanded the case back to the respondent-2 to decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of what has been stated by the High Court.
Advocate A J Pathak and Advocate G M Shitut appeared for the petitioner.
