The Allahabad High Court has said that because of the agreement on maintenance, it cannot be said that the wife has given up her claim to retirement benefits after the death of the husband.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery heard the petition filed by Rajni Rani.
One, Bhojraj Singh, was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri he and died on 02.10.2021. Petitioner is claiming retiral benefits of Bhojraj Singh on strength of being his nominee, as mentioned in service book as well as that she was staying with late Bhojraj Singh for many years as his wife.
Rakesh Kumar Rathore and Shyam Narayan Verma, Advocates appearing for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not disputing that Respondent-10, Usha Devi, was legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh. However, she left him many years ago and allegedly married to another person, therefore, she is not entitled for retiral benefits of Bhojraj Singh.
Counsel further submitted that there was a proceeding initiated at the instance of Respondent-10 under Section 125 Cr.P.C wherein a compromise was entered and agreed amount was taken by the Respondent-10 and thereafter she never claimed any maintenance allowance and as such she has abandoned her right, if any.
Per contra, Himanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Siddharth Khare, counsel for Respondent-10, has referred relevant part of impugned order and contended that since Respondent-10 is legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh and there was no divorce between them, therefore, only on basis of being nominee or that petitioner stayed with Bhojraj Singh for a long time, would not sufficient to accrue all retiral benefits to her.
The Court noted that,
In order to decide the controversy involved in the writ petition it appropriate to refer a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta Vs Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) 10 SCC 680 wherein it was held that a nominee of a Government employee is only a custodian and benefit after employee’s death will confer to his/her legal heirs.
The aforesaid view of Supreme Court has been followed and reiterated by the Court also in Smt Suneeta vs Union of India and others, decided on 14.07.2022.
The Court observed that,
As referred above, it is not in dispute that petitioner was not legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh as well as it is also not in dispute that Respondent-10 was legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh as well as it is also not dispute that during life time of Bhojraj Singh, he has not divorced Respondent-10.
The argument of the counsel for petitioner that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent-10 has made a compromise, therefore, it would be sufficient to hold that she has abandoned her right, cannot be accepted since it would not be a correct legal approach.
“On January 11, Respondent-10 is claiming her right and as held in Shipra Sengupta (supra) a nominee of a Government employee is just a custodian and benefit after death of Government employee has to be conferred or granted in accordance with law, i.e, to his/her legal heirs and in the case Respondent-10 is the legal heir being legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh and she was never divorced, therefore, I do not find any illegality in impugned order”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.