1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5666 of 2023 1 - Smt. Kesar Bai W/o Late Dhansuram Thakur Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Acholi, P.S. Sanjari, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Regional Account Officer, Cspdcl Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director Cspdcl Board, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Electricity Board, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Engineer Cspdcl, Doundi Lohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Uday Thakur S/o Late Dhansuram Thakur Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Namuram Thakur S/o Late Dhansuram Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Shankar Thakur S/o Late Dhansuram Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Meenu Thakur S/o Late Dhansuram Thakur Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Jhalmala, P.S. Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. In the present petition, the petitioner is not aggrieved against any particular order but due non-providing of pension amount to the petitioner, by the respondent authorities despite several communication. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the pension amounts to the petitioner with the immediate effect. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner, a 62-year-old citizen of India, is the second wife of late Dhansuram Thakur, who was a regular employee of the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board and retired 3 as Attendant Grade-II in 2003; Dhansuram, after living with the petitioner in Village Achkoli for about 45 years and having four daughters with her, died on 09.09.2019, whereas his first wife, Kunwariya Bai—mother of respondent Nos. 5 to 8—had been residing separately for decades and died earlier on 17.02.2016. After Dhansuram’s death, the petitioner applied to the respondent authorities for release of family pension and other retiral benefits, submitting all required forms including Form 42-A, revised claim forms, village residence certificate, and a consent letter from all legal heirs stating that they have no objection to pension being granted to her. Despite these documents and despite eligibility under CSPDCL pension rules, the authorities have kept the matter pending since 2019, causing serious hardship to the petitioner, who is in poor financial condition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of late Dhansuram Thakur and having lived with him continuously for over four decades until his death on 09.09.2019, is fully entitled to receive family pension and other retiral benefits under the applicable pension rules of CSPDCL. It is further submitted that the first wife of late Dhansuram expired on 17.02.2016, much prior to his death, and therefore no competing claim exists against the petitioner. Even otherwise, respondent Nos. 5 to 8, who are the children of the first wife, have unequivocally furnished their consent in favour of the petitioner and have raised no objection regarding the grant of 4 pension. Despite submission of all required documents, including Form 42-A, revised claim forms, residence certificate, and no- objection/consent letters, the respondent authorities have arbitrarily withheld the petitioner’s rightful pension since 2019 without assigning any lawful reason. It is submitted that the respondents, being public authorities, are duty-bound to process the petitioner’s claim in a timely and fair manner; however, their deliberate inaction has resulted in grave hardship to the petitioner, who is a 62-year-old senior citizen having no source of income and is completely dependent upon the pension for her sustenance. Such conduct on part of the authorities is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith release the family pension and other consequential benefits to the petitioner along with appropriate interest for the period of delay. Hence, the petition deserved to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 opposes the writ petition and submits that the present petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner has nowhere pleaded that she is the legally wedded wife of late Dhansuram, which is a mandatory requirement under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 for claiming family pension. On the contrary, from her own averments in the petition, it is evident that the alleged marriage between the 5 petitioner and late Dhansuram took place during the subsistence of his first marriage with late Kunwariya Bai, rendering such marriage void under Sections 5(i) and 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and consequently disentitling the petitioner from claiming pension under Rule 47(14)(b)(i) of the Pension Rules. It is further submitted that despite the death of his first wife in 2016, the deceased employee never applied for inclusion of the petitioner’s name in his service records, which itself casts serious doubt on the petitioner’s claim. The alleged applications filed by the petitioner bear no acknowledgment or proof of receipt, and the posts referred to by her such as “Joint Director” or “Joint Engineer” do not even exist in the respondent-department. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager, (2018) 2 CGLJ 79, wherein it has been held, following Supreme Court rulings, that a second wife whose marriage is void cannot claim pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner’s name was never entered in the service records and the alleged marriage is void in law, the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal with costs. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is undisputed fact that the Late Dhansuram was an employee of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL), Raipur. He joined 6 service on 19th September, 1994 and superannuated in the year 2003. Thereafter he passed away on 9th September, 2019. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 are the children born out of the wedlock of Late Kunwariya Bai, who is admitted to be the first wife of Late Dhansuram. The petitioner claims to be the second wife of Late Dhansuram and asserts entitlement to family pension and allied benefits arising out of his service. 8. On a careful reading of the documents on record and the evidence placed before this Court, it is apparent that during the lifetime of Late Dhansuram the service records, nomination(s) and related papers stood in the name of Kunwariya Bai together with her children. No undisputed contemporaneous material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner’s alleged marriage to Late Dhansuram was solemnised prior to the death of Kunwariya Bai or that the petitioner was accepted as the lawful spouse for service-benefit purposes during the lifetime of the deceased. 9. The petitioner’s case rests upon the assertion of a second marriage and on the contention that the children of the first marriage ought not to be treated as the only claimants to the family pension. However, the material on record does not satisfactorily establish that the petitioner acquired a legally recognised status as a spouse entitling her to succeed to the family pension without first obtaining the statutory/documentary route of succession or declaration of entitlement. 7 10. It is a well-known and established practice that claims to family pension and other terminal service benefits are to be decided on the basis of documentary records, nominations, succession certificates, or orders of a competent civil Court/ authority determining the legal heirs. Where competing claimants exist particularly where the service record and nominees are those of the first wife and her children, the appropriate course is to obtain the requisite legal declaration i.e. a succession certificate or declaration of legal heirship before the disbursing authority is called upon to make payment. 11. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajkumari & Anr. v. Krishna & Ors. (2015) 14 SCC 511. It is sufficient to note that the factual background and the reliefs granted in that case are materially different. Moreover, in the said judgment the Supreme Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to mould relief in the peculiar facts of that case which is a power this Court cannot invoke to override the settled administrative and statutory process applicable to the disbursement of family pension in general. 12. In the present proceedings this Court is not persuaded that it should or can bypass the normal and established mechanism for adjudication of competing claims to family pension. The petitioner has not produced any conclusive legal document (such as a 8 decree of marriage prior to the death of the first wife, a succession certificate, or an order of a competent civil court) which would disentitle the children of the first marriage or which would compel the respondent authorities to make payment to the petitioner in preference to the existing nominees. It is also relevant to observe that disputes of fact regarding the validity and timing of marriages, legitimacy of claims and competing heirship are matters which are best and appropriately determined by a forum specifically empowered to adjudicate such private-law disputes (for example, the civil courts or the authority competent to grant succession certificates). Administrative authorities are ordinarily bound to act on the basis of records and legally operative documents; they cannot be expected to resolve intricate questions of personal law in the absence of such documents. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no ground to interfere with the action of the respondents in treating the children of the first wife as legitimate claimants in the absence of any binding legal determination to the contrary. The petition therefore fails on merits. 14. However, in the interest of justice and to obviate multiplicity of proceedings, the petitioner is permitted and directed to approach the competent civil Court or the relevant authority for issuance of a succession certificate, declaration of legal heirship, or any other appropriate instrument of legal entitlement. If the 9 petitioner obtains a valid succession certificate or a judicial declaration establishing her entitlement as a lawful spouse/ heir, the respondents shall act in accordance with law and the rules applicable to family pension and other terminal benefits of Late Dhansuram. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue her remedy before the competent civil forum or the authority that issues succession certificates. If and when a legally operative instrument in favour of the petitioner is produced before the respondents, the respondents shall process the claim in accordance with law and the relevant service rules without avoidable delay. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha