- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shipra Thakur Minor Shipra Snehil & Ors. v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petition concerns the entitlement and division of family pension following the death of Madan Mohan Thakur. He was first married to Manorma Thakur, who bore no children, and subsequently married Nidhi Thakur, with whom he had three minor children at the time of his death. The department had initially agreed to divide all death-cum-retiral dues equally among the first wife and the three children from the second marriage. However, the department later decided that the family pension could only be paid to one person, namely the first wife. The first wife, Manorma Thakur, was made a party to these proceedings and appeared before the court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the family pension is to be divided among the first wife and the three minor children from the second marriage or paid solely to the first wife.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the family pension is intended for the entire family, not solely for the wife, emphasizing the term "family pension." Despite the department's later decision to pay the pension only to the first wife, the court noted that the family includes both the first wife and the three children from the second marriage. Even though the second marriage was considered void for the purposes of the Service Contract under Section 23 of the Contract Act, the children remain part of the family entitled to benefits. The court criticized the department's legalistic approach that precluded proportionate division of family pension, which would unjustly deprive the children of their rightful share. Consequently, the court set aside the department's order denying division of the family pension and directed that the pension be divided equally among the eligible claimants.
The court further clarified that under the Bihar Pension Rules, children are entitled to family pension until they reach the age of 25 years or marry, whichever occurs earlier, and the proportion payable to each child depends on their eligibility status.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the family pension be divided equally among the first wife and the three minor children from the second marriage.
The department's earlier order restricting family pension payment solely to the first wife is set aside. The department is directed to clear all arrears of pension and pensionary benefits within two months. This decision directly affects the parties by ensuring the children receive their proportional share of the family pension but does not establish any new legal precedent beyond the facts of the case.
1. The basic question arises in the present writ petition is with regard to share of the three minor children from the second wife in respect of family pension. So far as other payments are concerned, the department has agreed to divide equally amongst the first wife and the three children from the second marriage. It remain unrebutted that late Madan Mohan Thakur first married Manorma Thakur, who could not bear any child. He then married Nidhi Thakur, from whom he has three children being two daughters and one son. All of whom were minors when he died. Board has earlier resolved to divide all death-cum-retiral dues between the first wife and the three children equally, which would have included the family pension as well. It has now decided that family pension can only be paid to one person and the said person would naturally be the first wife. In these proceedings Manorma Thakur, the first wife who has been made party, has appeared.
2. The question is whether family pension is to be divided or not? In my view, the earlier decision of the Board, which was taken in the year 2003, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, was correct. Family pension is not just for the wife. Its nomenclature goes for family pension it is for the family.
3. In the case of Madan Mohan Thakur, his family consists of his wife and his three children from the second wife even though with the consent of the parties it is a void marriage and cannot be given effect to in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act for the purposes of securing her any difficulty under the Service Contract. Thus, if the family consists of first wife and the three children from the second wife, the Board's decision, as per Annexure-4, to pay the family pension only to the first wife that is step-mother of the children cannot be understood. Are the children to be left out totally? While the Board agreed that death-cum-retiral dues have to be shared equally by four persons, I am surprised why it has taken a legalistic view that family pension cannot be proportionate. Such a legalistic view would deprive the children of the pension, which they were entitled to Thus, I have no hesitation in setting aside Annexure-4 in so far as it holds that family pension cannot be bifurcated and has to be paid only to single wife.
4. I, therefore, direct that the order of Building Construction Department, as communicated to the petitioner, under memo no. 6481, dated 18.8.2010, as contained in Anhexure-4, is set aside only in relation to non-division of family pension. The department is directed to divide the pension into equal part payable to eligible claimants. I may clarify that as per Bihar Pension Rules deceased employee's children are entitled to family pension till they attain the age of 25 years or they marry whichever is earlier. Thus, proportionate of family pension payable as between the four claimants would depend upon each of the children but they would remain equally as amongst the eligible persons.
5. Let department act accordingly and clear all arrears of pension and pensionary benefits within a period of two months from today.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Alert