CW 5216/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5216/2006 Smt. Kanta Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 13/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. CP Sharma, for petitioner. Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State-respondents Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.04/05/06 (Ann.9) of Chief Engineer and so also order dt.19/05/06 (Ann.11) passed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal-309/06. As alleged in her petition, petitioner claims herself legally wedded wife of late Prakash Kumar Sikarwal who expired on 17/04/02 while working as UDC in Public Works Department District Division South, Jaipur, on whose death, his terminal benefits were paid to respondent No.5 (Smt. Manju) whose name was alleged to have been assigned by deceased Government servant in his service record. Initially petitioner approached the Tribunal with the grievance that she being legally wedded wife of deceased government servant, the alleged 2nd marriage claimed by respondent No.5 herein was nullity; as such she alone is entitled for pensionary benefits of her CW 5216/06 //2// late husband. After taking note of rival claims of parties and material on record, learned Tribunal vide judgment dt.18/10/05 (Ann.5) in Appeal-1740/02 (Smt.Kanta Vs. Chief Engineer PWD) directed respondents authority to hold in- house inquiry and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law. In pursuance whereof, respondents authority considered rival claims of petitioner as well as of respondent No.5 herein vide order dt.04/05/06 (Ann.9) and finally observed that since Smt. Manju (respondent NO.5 herein) alongwith son Pratap Singh were shown as nominees during life time of deceased Government servant (Prakash Kumar Sikarwal), as per service Rules, nominees are ordinarily entitled for pensionary benefits and as regards rival claim of petitioner claiming herself to be legally wedded life since marriage having been solemnized on 26/06/1967, it could not be adjudicated by respondents employer and could be raised by her in an appropriate forum under law. It is relevant to mention that while submitting rival claims, petitioner alleged that she got married with Prakash Kumar Sikarwal (Government servant) on 26/06/67 while on the other hand, Manju Devi stated that as per rites & customs in Hindu religion, she married with CW 5216/06 //3// Prakash Kumar Sikarwal on 05/05/1975 and she was the only wife of the deceased; as such certainly this issue could not have been considered by respondents (employer) who left it open for consideration and adjudication by appropriate forum, vide order dt.04/05/06 (Ann.9) which was assailed by petitioner in Appeal-309/06 which too was dismissed vide judgment dt.19/05/06 (Ann.11) on the premise that their rival claims of being legally wedded wife of deceased government servant could not have been considered by the Tribunal and the petitioner has to avail of remedy under law. Hence this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner being legally wedded wife of deceased government servant, alone is entitled to pensionary benefits admissible to her husband and alleged second marriage with respondent NO.5 was nullity in the eye of law and that apart, even if her name was assigned as nominee of deceased servant, she could not be entitled for release of pensionary benefits under law; as such action of respondents State in extending family pension to respondent No.5 herein is not legally sustainable. Respondents have filed reply to the CW 5216/06 //4// petition and what has been observed by the authority in orders dt.04/05/06 of the Chief Engineer & 19/05/06 of the Tribunal have been reiterated in the form of reply. Having considered contentions of parties and with their assistance, examined material on record, this Court finds that question raised by petitioner of claiming herself as legally wedded wife of deceased Government servant, which certainly has been disputed by respondent No.5, as well, cannot be considered by learned Tribunal and her plea has been rejected vide earlier order dt.18/10/05 (Ann.5) and their inter-se dispute can be settled only upon the parties having led their evidence in support of rival claims in appropriate forum and certainly cannot be examined by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction. This Court however does not find any manifest error being committed by learned Tribunal while passing order impugned dt.19/05/06, which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner will be free to avail of remedy under law before appropriate forum which would not be influenced by any of observations made herein above. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/5216CW06-13Jn.doc