1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6687 OF 2008 1] Smt. Yamunabai w/o. Sajanrao Vanarse, Age 45 years, Occ. Household. 2] Rameshwar s/o. Sajanrao Vanarse, Age 21 years, Occ. Education. 3] Ku. Shantabai d/o. Sajanrao Vanarse, minor under guardianship of real mother i.e. petitioner No.1 4] Samindrabai d/o. Sajanrao Vanarse, minor under guardianship of real mother i.e. petitioner No.1 5] Fakirba s/o. Sajanrao Vanarase, minor under guardianship of real mother i.e. petitioner No.1 All R/o. Fatepur, Tq. Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. .. petitioners Versus 1] The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna Dist. Jalna. 2] The Executive Engineer, Works Department, Zilla Parishad, Jalna Dist. Jalna 3] The Deputy Engineer, Works Department, Zilla Parishad, Sub-Division Bhokardhan, Tq. Bhokardhan, 2 Dist. Jalna. 4] Smt. Tarabai w/o. Sajanrao Vanarase Age 40 years, Occ; Household R/o. Phattepur, Tq. Bhokardan District Jalna 6] Ku. Soni d/o. Sajanrao Vanarase, Age 16 years, Occ. Nil Minor U/G of Mother respondent No.4 R/o. as above. .. Respondent. --- Mr. N.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar,, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Osmanpurkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER A.P. DESHPANDE,J.] :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. . The petitioner No.1 is admittedly the legally wedded wife of deceased Sajanrao Vanarse. Out of the legal wedlock, 4 children are born who are impleaded as petitioners 2 to 5. The deceased was employed as a Driver in the employment of the Zilla Parishad, Jalna and at the time of death, was working under the respondent No.3, 3 Deputy Engineer Works Department, Bhokardan Sub-Division, District Jalna. While being in service, the deceased had executed a nomination form as required by Rule 115 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The nomination is in favour of the petitioner No.1 viz. the first legally wedded wife of the deceased. After the death of the husband, the petitioner No.1 moved an application dated 3/1/2006, to the Zilla Parishad, for retirement-cum- death gratuity, family pension and other retiral dues payable to the nominee on account of death of her husband. It appears that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, objected to the payment of dues in favour of the petitioner No.1, on the ground that the deceased had performed second marriage with the respondent No.4 Tarabai and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock by name Kumari Soni, who is aged about 16 years. During the lifetime of Sajanrao Vanarase, deceased husband of the petitioner No.1, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceedings, the court had directed payment of maintenance @ Rs.500/- p.m. to respondent Nos.4 and 5, by Sajanrao Vanarase. A further direction was issued that the amount of maintenance be deducted from the salary payable to Sajanrao and be handed over to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In view of the objection raised by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, for release of the retiral dues in favour of the petitioners, the 4 employer Zilla Parishad, has chosen not to release the retiral dues, so also, pension. However, the petitioners were called upon to submit the succession certificate. The petitioners obtained the succession certificate and submitted the same to the Zilla Parishad However, despite the same, the petitienr No.1 who has been nominated by the deceased under 115, has not been paid the amount receivable by her on account of death of her husband. . On notice being issued, the Zilla Parishad has put in appearance. The learned counsel for the Zilla parishad, has placed on record a circular dated 3rd November, 2008, which goes to clarify some of the queries touching the interpretation of the pension rules of 1982. The same is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Our attention is invited to clarification at Sr. Nos. 9 and 12, which clarify Rule 116(16(b)) which goes to define "Family". "Family" has been defined as under : "Family”, in relation to a Government servant means :- (i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government Servant (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; 5 (iii) son who has not attained the age of twenty-one years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty- four years, including such son and daughter adopted legally before retirement.” It is clarified that wife means legally wedded wife. So far as clarification No.12 is concerned, reference to son or daughter would be legitimate son or daughter. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, as per the relevant rules as clarified in Circular dated 3/11/2008, the petitioners alone would be entitled to claim the death cum retirement gratuity, family pension and other retiral dues and not the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, atleast the respondent No.5 need to be held eligible to the benefits, she being the illegitimate daughter born out of the wedlock of the deceased with the respondent NO.4. In his submission, under the personal law, the respondent NO.5 would be entitled to a share in the property left behind by the deceased. . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the payment of amount of pension and death cum retirement gratuity is concerned, the same has to be regulated by Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, irrespective of personal law governing the deceased government servant. 6 We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as payment of pension and death cum retirement gratuity etc. would e regulated by the Pension Rules and not by the personal law. Precisely, this very is the stand of the Zilla Parishad/employer. The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that the Zilla Parishad Jalna would release the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioners, if it is clarified that the order passed by the court directing payment of maintenance in the sum of Rs. 500/- in favour of the respondent No.4 and 5, would not come in their way in releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioners. . We have no iota of doubt that on the date of death of deceased, the order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would cease to operate atleast to the extent of direction to deduct the said amount from the salary payable to Sajanrao and in turn, its payment to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. We declare that there is no impediment in the way of the Zilla Parishad, in releasing the pensionary benefits including the death cum retirement gratuity in favour of the petitioners, to the exclusion of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and direct the respondent No.1, to act accordingly. . We make it clear that if the respondent No.5 wants to enforce her right against any property left behind by the deceased, on 7 the ground that respondent No.5 is the illegitimate child of the deceased born from the respondent No.4, it shall be open for the respondent No.5 to take appropriate proceedings for the same before appropriate forum. With this clarification, the writ petition is allowed. The Zilla Parishad, Jalna shall release the pensionary benefits including the death gratuity, together with other dues, in favour of the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of 3 months from today. . Rule is made absolute in above terms. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-