1 2025:CGHC:56212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1460 of 2023 1 - Saroj Bai W/o Late Deenuram Nag Aged About 60 Years R/o House No.186, Ward No. 4, Village Chargaon, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh 3 - Block Education Officer Block Koylibeda, Post Pakhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director (Funds And Pension) Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Smt. Tejbati Baghel W/o Bhagatram Baghel Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Bazar Para, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Veena Dewangan W/o Shankardewangan Aged About 33 Years R/o Mahaveer Chowk, Budhvari Bazar Para, Narayanpur District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Vasuki Nayak W/o Ramesh Nayak Aged About 30 Years R/o ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Village Porondi, Post Chargaon, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to fixed the family pension amount and payment the entire monthly family pension amount to the petitioner with 18% interest. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded second wife of the deceased employee, namely Deenuram, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher (T Cadre). The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the actions of the respondent authorities, which are illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of law. It is submitted that the petitioner’s name has been duly recorded in the 3 service records of the deceased employee as his nominee, thereby entitling her to receive monthly family pension benefits, which the respondents have unjustifiably withheld. Despite the petitioner's nomination being formally acknowledged in the official records, the respondents have failed to extend the rightful pensionary benefits to her, in clear violation of statutory obligations. The respondents have wrongfully ignored the petitioner’s legitimate claim, and their continuous refusal to release the family pension—particularly when the petitioner is an elderly woman with no independent source of income and has been suffering severe financial hardship since 2016 to the point of near destitution—is manifestly arbitrary and per se illegal. It is further submitted that the deceased employee had duly informed the department by filing an affidavit stating that his first wife had passed away and that he subsequently performed a second marriage with the petitioner; however, the said affidavit contains a typographical error made by the deceased employee. Learned counsel submits that relying solely on such an inadvertent typographical mistake to deny pensionary benefits, coupled with the continued inaction and deliberate delay on the part of the authorities, not only contravenes statutory duties but also amounts to mental harassment of the petitioner, who is being unjustly deprived of benefits legally due to her. 4 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission advanced by learned counsel petitioner and submits that due to the typographical error/mistake apparent on the affidavit the authorities are not releasing the retiral dues, family pension and other consequential benefits of the deceased employee to the present petitioner. It is admitted that the late Deenuram Nag has himself filed an affidavit before the respondent department with regard to death of her first wife and thereafter the deceased employee performed the second marriage with the custom of Chudi Pratha. He further submits that if this Court directs, the authorities will grant all the retiral dues in accordance with law within the stipulated period as fixed by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition with utmost circumspection. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the refusal on the part of the respondent authorities to release the retiral dues and family pension to the petitioner is based solely on a typographical error occurring in the affidavit submitted by the deceased employee himself. It is an admitted position that the deceased employee, late Deenuram Nag, had duly informed the department regarding the death of his first wife and had further declared, through the said affidavit, that he had contracted a 5 second marriage with the present petitioner in accordance with customary rites and as yet no one has objected the second marriage of the deceased employee, namely, Deenuram, with the present petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s name shall stand duly recorded in the service records as nominee, and taking into consideration that the only objection pertains to an inadvertent typographical mistake committed by the deceased employee, this Court is of the opinion that such a minor error cannot be a ground to deprive the petitioner of her lawful entitlement. 6. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to release all retiral dues, including monthly family pension and other consequential benefits of the deceased employee, in favour of the petitioner. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that failure to comply with the above direction within the stipulated time shall entitle the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 8. Accordingly, with these observation(s) and direction(s) this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena