L!}1 3^^^ :-HC—78 r^'> <<THCfll ft»*(l<sh T^T ^l^ld4, ^Ti1^4i<o, {®i<ni^^< ^^.^.^....^^••••••"•""••^20^ 311^1 '<WP( <lcli^^) aTS^l^Tf^W ^^TW^i ^HI^ ^«ii<??Rtitia 317^1 PETITIONERS -Vei RESPONDENTS SirsaSe Bench: Hon3 •^prf^pft^f ^TTR^if ^f fe^ <Fait^l< ^3tfW3^T us- Smt. Uma BaS R^jgir. Aged 46 years, W/o Late Gokul Prasad Rajgir Dinesh Kumar Rajgir, aged 26 years, S/o Late Gokul Prasad Rajgir Mahesh Kumar Rajgir, Aged 24 years, S/o Late Gokui Prasad Rajgir, All petitioners are R/o Krishna Nagar, Juna Biiaspur, District Biiaspur (CG) Stete of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantmlaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The District Education Otficer, BiEaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Urmiia Bai Rajgfr, Aged 59 years, W/o Late Gokul Prasad Rajgir, R/o Krishna Nagar, Juna Bilaspur, Djstrict Bijaspur. Ajit Kumar Rajgir, Aged 36 years, S/o Late Gokul Prasad Rajgir, working as Asstt. Teacher, at Govt. H.S.S. Khamhariya BIock Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG) R/o Krishna Nagar, Juna Bitaspur, District Bilaspyr Ravi Kumar Rajgir, Aged 21 years, S/o Late Gokul Prasad Rajgir, R/o Krishna Nagar, Juna Bitaspur, Djstrict Bilaspur (CG) ttle Shri Dhirendra Mtshra. J. ^ H^ XI-HC—78 'T^T ^ii^«n<H, ^Ti1^i4i<o, ^cni^y aiT^i'sn^ti^ iCTOT^r^Hw ^IIMCTI a»*ll<?» "^200 3^T 'q^RT (<iq^<i?) ^nw^f^i 3??it^i _, daNd 27-1-2009:- Shri R.K. Kesharwani,coun< Smt, Smita Ghai, Panel Ls^ Heard. The petitioners dajming Prasad Rajgir, have filed this respondents to aliow them the bei| dues after the deattii ofsajd Gokul working as Assistant Teacher.l No.5644/2007 for the similar relk matter was referred to the Hlgh Pc| the State Government for decjsiohl vjde order of Annexure-P/6 petitjoners with a finding that dec] Respondent No,3 is the fsrst wife; son of respondent No;3 whereas, tl pension was disbursed to respondi respondent No.3, the petitioner an< benefrt of famiiy pension tiJJ they No.1 is the second wrfe and secom of Sections 5 & 11 of the Hindu ?y she is not entitled for any property Succession Act, 1956. However, woisid be entitjed for family pension Learned counsel for the pet being ieaal hesrs of the deceased <^S^?^4l4 "RP^f ^ 'fe^ if^lt^K ^3tRm37?^r sel for the petitjoners. <er for the State/responctente No.1 & 2. tttemselves to be wife and sons of GoNul petition seeking directions against the lefrt offamily pension and arrears of retfraj Prasad Rajgir, who died on 16-3-97 while Their eariier petition bearing W.P. was disposed of by this Court and the wer RetiraJ Dues Committee constituted by The Hjgh Power Retirai Dues CommJtte® 12-8-2008 has dedded eJaims of the »ased Gokul Prasad Rajgir married twice. ^who aiready died. Respondent No.4 is the ie petitioner is the second wife. The family ^nt No.3 after his death. After the death of her sons would be entftfed to receive the ^ttain the age of 25 years. Since petittoner mamage was sotemnized jn contravention 4amage Act, the same is void afo iniffo and view of the provisions contained in Hindu |er sons being iegal heir$ of the deceased poners sybmlts ttiat petitioner Nos;2 and 3 femployee are entitiarl fnr ratiraj rlllW aft@F <.u. XI-HC—78 ^T^l^T'^ft^ "^ST 3?T^T s^<4i4> Ban/e 'S^f ^ll^ld^ ^Tl1^4(<o/ fQl<ytl^^< ^WVM ynWGh ••^200 3T1^TT^FT(yit3q^) ^RHW^f?^ 311^1 '<^8^41'i 'HH^f ^ "fe^t i^l^K ^affimsn^T the death of their father Gokill decided claim of the petitjoners] dues exc?ept family pension. Takjng into considerationj Retiral Dues Committee for decl retiraJ dues ofGokul Prasad Nos. 2 and 3 to be entitfed fos] years, this Court is of the vie^ issued by thss Court. The griev^i? of the petitipnere for other retirs|l remedy for the same by filing j^r the entitlement of the petitjorie|rs deceased employee through hi$ under Articie 226 of the Constitut Prasad Rajgir and the Committee has not vith respect to their entltlement to other retiral jthat the matter was referred t©the Hi@h Power ?ion of entitiement of the petitioners to receive Rajgir and the said Committee has held petittoner family pension till they attain th@ age of 25 that they have comptied with the directlon |ince, if any, still survives regarding ©ntitlement dues, the petitioners are at liberfy to pursue (roper proceedjng avaJJable under frie law, as viz. a viz. claim of the legal heirs of the first wjfe cannot b©decided in a pn>c©eding ;ion of Sndia, Hence, fr»epetition is djsmjase4^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge