[ad_1]
The Allahabad Excessive Court docket has mentioned that due to the settlement on upkeep, it can’t be mentioned that the spouse has given up her declare to retirement advantages after the dying 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 whereas working as Assistant Trainer in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior Excessive Faculty Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri he and died on 02.10.2021. Petitioner is claiming retiral advantages of Bhojraj Singh on energy of being his nominee, as talked about in service e-book in addition to that she was staying with late Bhojraj Singh for a few years as his spouse.
Rakesh Kumar Rathore and Shyam Narayan Verma, Advocates showing for petitioner, submitted that the petitioner will not be disputing that Respondent-10, Usha Devi, was legally wedded spouse of Bhojraj Singh. Nevertheless, she left him a few years in the past and allegedly married to a different particular person, subsequently, she will not be entitled for retiral advantages of Bhojraj Singh.
Counsel additional submitted that there was a continuing initiated on the occasion of Respondent-10 below Part 125 Cr.P.C whereby a compromise was entered and agreed quantity was taken by the Respondent-10 and thereafter she by no means claimed any upkeep allowance and as such she has deserted her proper, if any.
Per contra, Himanshu Singh, Advocate holding temporary of Siddharth Khare, counsel for Respondent-10, has referred related a part of impugned order and contended that since Respondent-10 is legally wedded spouse of Bhojraj Singh and there was no divorce between them, subsequently, solely on foundation of being nominee or that petitioner stayed with Bhojraj Singh for a very long time, wouldn’t enough to accrue all retiral advantages to her.
The Court docket famous that,
In an effort to resolve the controversy concerned within the writ petition it acceptable to refer a judgment handed by the Supreme Court docket in Shipra Sengupta Vs Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) 10 SCC 680 whereby it was held {that a} nominee of a Authorities worker is barely a custodian and profit after worker’s dying will confer to his/her authorized heirs.
The aforesaid view of Supreme Court docket has been adopted and reiterated by the Court docket additionally in Smt Suneeta vs Union of India and others, selected 14.07.2022.
The Court docket noticed that,
As referred above, it’s not in dispute that petitioner was not legally wedded spouse of Bhojraj Singh in addition to it is usually not in dispute that Respondent-10 was legally wedded spouse of Bhojraj Singh in addition to it is usually not dispute that in life time of Bhojraj Singh, he has not divorced Respondent-10.
The argument of the counsel for petitioner that within the proceedings below Part 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent-10 has made a compromise, subsequently, it could be enough to carry that she has deserted her proper, can’t be accepted since it could not be an accurate authorized strategy.
“On January 11, Respondent-10 is claiming her proper and as held in Shipra Sengupta (supra) a nominee of a Authorities worker is only a custodian and profit after dying of Authorities worker needs to be conferred or granted in accordance with regulation, i.e, to his/her authorized heirs and within the case Respondent-10 is the authorized inheritor being legally wedded spouse of Bhojraj Singh and he or she was by no means divorced, subsequently, I don’t discover any illegality in impugned order”, the Court docket additional noticed whereas dismissing the petition.
[ad_2]
Source link
