IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7571 of 2010. Date of Decision: 27th July, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Durgi Devi ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others .…Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For respondent No.4: None. For respondent No.5: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Central Government Counsel. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). By means of present writ petition the petitioner seeks the quashment of Annexure P-8 whereby respondent No.4 the first wife of deceased Bhola Ram was granted family pension after his death. 2. Said Shri Bhola Ram had retired from the Army service and got reemployment in Police Department. The petitioner was entered in the service record by the deceased as his wife alongwith children born from the said wedlock. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was retired from the service on 30.6.1983. His 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - pension was sanctioned by respondent No.5. He died on 17.1.2002 and the family pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as per entry contained in the service-book. Later respondent No.4 sent a complaint to the Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh claiming herself to be the first and legally wedded wife of deceased Bhola Ram. An enquiry was initiated, which was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. It revealed that respondent No.4 Ramku Devi alias Ram Kaur was the legally wedded wife of deceased Bhola Ram, but there was no issue out of the said wedlock. Consequently, Bhola Ram solemnized second marriage with the petitioner. It also revealed during the enquiry that the petitioner had also requested the army authorities to release family pension of said Shri Bhola Ram to her being the second wife, but they rejected her claim and recommended full family pension to respondent No.4, who was already recorded as the wife of the deceased. 3. From the record, it stands established that the petitioner herein was kept as a wife by the deceased during the subsistence of the first marriage with respondent No.4, which is void. Therefore, there could not be a valid nomination in her favour by the - 3 - deceased for the payment of pension. Even otherwise also, the nominee is the trustee of the rightful claimant and no relief can be granted to her. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer sought cannot be allowed. As such, the petition is dismissed. July 27, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.