1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 37 of 2023 1 - Smt. Gelmani Diwan W/o Late Shri Puranlal Diwan Aged About 52 Years R/o Village And Post Seoni, Tahsil Bastar District Bastar (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health, Mantralay, Naya Raipur P.S. Rakhi District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bastar Collector Office Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre Bastar, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Vikas Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15.01.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary denial of family pension by the respondent authorities after the death of her husband, late Shri Puranlal Diwan, former Supervisor in the office of the Block Medical Officer, CHC Bastar, Jagdalpur, who died on 23.09.2020 after retirement, on the ground that the petitioner is the second wife, ignoring Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which permits a second marriage with State permission duly obtained by the deceased, and despite repeated representations, the petitioner has been unlawfully denied her rightful pension. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner demand. b. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ commanding the respondent authorities to start the family pension of the petitioner in accordance with law. c. This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 25.03.2022 (Annexure P- 1) issued by the respondent authority. d. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a second wife of late Shri Puranlal Diwan, who served as Supervisor in the office of the 3 Block Medical Officer, Bastar District Bastar, and died on 23.09.2020 after retirement, while his first wife had predeceased him on 26.07.2020 without leaving any issue; the petitioner was duly recorded as wife and nominee in the service records of the deceased, and despite submitting several representations seeking release of family pension, the respondent No.3 rejected her claim vide order dated 25.03.2022 solely on the ground that she is the second wife, ignoring Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which permits a second marriage with prior permission of the State, duly obtained by the deceased, thereby illegally denying the petitioner her lawful family pension. Hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the family pension of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner’s name was duly recorded in the nominee form as well as in the service records of the deceased employee, which clearly establishes that late Shri Puranlal Diwan had obtained prior permission for contracting a second marriage in accordance with Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is further submitted that the respondents have failed to assign any valid or lawful reason for denial of family pension and have overlooked their statutory duty to ensure timely disbursement of retiral and family pensionary benefits to the lawful family members of the deceased employee. 4 The respondents have also ignored the admitted fact that the first wife of the deceased employee expired on 26.07.2020 and, on the date of death of the employee i.e. 23.09.2020, the petitioner was the sole surviving legally wedded wife and was, therefore, fully entitled to receive family pension. He further submits that the petitioner, being the second wife of the deceased employee, is legally entitled to family pension after the death of the first wife. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the circular dated 05.08.2000 issued by the State Government in relation to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which provides that an employee may contract a second marriage after obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. It is contended that since the deceased employee had duly obtained such prior permission, the petitioner’s claim for family pension is fully in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. It is contended that family pension cannot be granted to the second wife who married the employee during the subsistence of the first marriage. He further submits that even as per the said circular, Rule 3 specifically provides that the second wife is not entitled to family pension. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension is founded on her status as the second wife of the deceased employee. The petitioner has primarily relied upon Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the circular dated 05.08.2000 to contend that since the deceased employee had obtained prior permission for contracting a second marriage, she is legally entitled to family pension. However, a plain reading of the said circular clearly reveals that Rule 3 thereof specifically provides that a second wife is not entitled to family pension, even if the second marriage was contracted with prior permission of the competent authority. The object of the circular is to regulate service conditions and matrimonial status of government employees, but it does not confer any independent right upon the second wife to claim pensionary benefits. It is further noticed that family pension is a statutory benefit governed strictly by the relevant pension rules and circulars, and entitlement thereto can arise only in accordance with the conditions prescribed therein. The mere fact that the petitioner was recorded as nominee in the service records or that the first wife of the deceased had expired prior to his death does not override the explicit bar contained in Rule 3 of the circular dated 05.08.2000. The provisions governing family pension do not recognize the 6 claim of a second wife for grant of such benefit when the marriage was solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife. Therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any enforceable legal right contrary to the express provisions of the governing rules. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, and in the absence of any provision under the applicable rules entitling the petitioner, as second wife, to receive family pension, the rejection of her claim by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or contrary to law. The impugned order has been passed in conformity with the relevant circular and statutory framework and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, no merit is found in the present petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha