The Patna High Court has clarified an important question of family pension under the Bihar Pension Rules: whether a “second wife,” married after the government servant’s retirement and surviving as the only spouse on the date of his death, is entitled to family pension. In this case, the petitioner married the retired employee after his superannuation. The first wife passed away before the employee’s death. Relying on a 2011 Government Resolution, authorities denied pension to the petitioner on the ground that she was the “second wife.” The Court rejected that approach, holding that the Resolution could not be applied retrospectively to a death that occurred in 2005 and, in any event, its scheme envisaged equal sharing of pension only when both wives are alive. Since only one spouse survived at the time of death, the petitioner’s entitlement could not be denied. The Court directed release of family pension with arrears within four weeks.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment (700–900 words)

This case centers on the right to family pension following the death of a retired State employee in Bihar. The petitioner was married to the deceased government servant after his retirement from service (superannuation). The first wife was alive at the time of this second marriage, but she predeceased the employee. When the employee later died, only the second marriage subsisted in fact; there was no surviving first wife. The authorities nevertheless denied family pension to the petitioner, reasoning that she was a “second wife” and referring to Government Resolution No. 1549 dated 24.06.2011.

Two legal threads guided the Court’s analysis.

First, the Court examined the status of the marriage in light of service conduct rules. Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1976 restricts a government servant from contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife while in service. However, the Court emphasized that this conduct rule binds an individual only “so long he is in service.” After retirement, he ceases to be a government servant for purposes of conduct, though his pension remains governed by the Bihar Pension Rules. In other words, the service conduct constraint on second marriage does not, by itself, disqualify a spouse married after superannuation from claiming family pension.

Second, the Court considered the facts and the Government’s reliance on the 2011 Resolution. The record showed: (a) the employee retired on 30.06.1983; (b) he married the petitioner on 19.01.1984, i.e., after retirement; (c) the first wife died on 05.11.2003; and (d) the employee died on 05.09.2005. Thus, on the date of death, only the petitioner survived as the spouse. Authorities nonetheless denied pension, citing the 2011 Resolution to argue that a second wife is not entitled. The Court rejected that logic for two reasons: temporal application and the scheme of the Resolution itself.

On temporal application, the Court held that the 2011 Resolution could not operate retrospectively to deprive a right that arose upon death in 2005. A policy or resolution that post-dates the cause of action is generally prospective unless clearly stated otherwise; in the absence of such indication, the Court would not read it backward to unsettle entitlements triggered years earlier. Therefore, the State’s reliance on the 2011 Resolution to defeat a 2005 family pension claim was legally untenable.

Even assuming the Resolution applied, the Court observed that Clause 3 of the same Resolution contemplates an equal division of family pension only where both wives are alive. In that event, pension is to be shared 50:50 between the two spouses. But where the first wife has already died, there is no question of division, and no basis to deny pension to the surviving spouse who alone stands in the position of widow on the date of death. This reading treats the policy as a mechanism to share pension where two spouses survive, rather than to exclude a surviving spouse solely because her marriage was the second one. On the facts here, since the first wife had predeceased the employee, the petitioner was the only surviving spouse at the relevant time. Consequently, denying pension to her was contrary to the scheme of the Resolution itself.

The High Court therefore issued a clear direction: authorities must release family pension to the petitioner, including arrears, within four weeks from receipt of the order. By doing so, the Court not only resolved the petitioner’s grievance but also clarified the legal position for similarly situated families. The order aligns pension disbursal with both the timing of the right (date of death) and the practical reality of a sole surviving spouse.

In sum, three key takeaways emerge:

1. A post-retirement marriage is not barred by service conduct rules that govern only while in service; pension rights are to be considered under the Pension Rules, not by penalizing a spouse for a marriage contracted after superannuation.
2. Government policies introduced after the employee’s death (like the 2011 Resolution) cannot be used retrospectively to defeat family pension that crystallized earlier, unless the policy clearly says so.
3. Even under the 2011 Resolution’s Clause 3, family pension is divided only when both spouses are alive. If only one spouse survives at the date of death, that spouse’s entitlement is not to be denied.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)

For families: The ruling protects the rights of a surviving spouse whose marriage took place after the employee’s retirement. It prevents denial of pension based on a simplistic “second wife” label when, at the time of death, she is the only surviving spouse. Families in Bihar facing similar objections can rely on this reasoning to assert their rights.

For government departments: Pension sanctioning authorities must assess entitlement with reference to the situation as on the date of death and the prospective nature of later policy instruments. When a government resolution (such as the 2011 Resolution) is cited, officers should read it carefully: “division” applies only where two spouses survive; it is not a blanket bar against a surviving second spouse. The judgment also underscores that conduct rules have a limited field of operation post-retirement and cannot be used indirectly to disqualify a widow from pension.

For legal clarity: The decision harmonizes service conduct rules, pension rules, and subsequent policy resolutions, providing a workable approach for edge cases involving plural marriages and survival scenarios.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning

• Whether a spouse married after the employee’s superannuation can be denied family pension solely because the marriage was a second marriage during the first wife’s lifetime.
  • Decision: No. Rule 23 of the 1976 Conduct Rules binds only while in service; after superannuation, it does not bar the marriage from being recognized for pension purposes.
• Whether Government Resolution No. 1549 dated 24.06.2011 can be applied retrospectively to deny family pension where the employee died in 2005.
  • Decision: No. The Resolution is prospective; applying it to a 2005 death would be retrospective and impermissible absent express intent.
• If the 2011 Resolution were assumed applicable, whether it bars pension to a surviving second spouse when the first wife had died before the employee’s death.
  • Decision: No. Clause 3 provides for equal division only when both wives survive; when only one spouse survives, denial cannot be justified.

Case Title
Bibi Rashida Khatoon v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20209 of 2016

Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 92

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey (Oral Judgment dated 28-01-2021).

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh, Advocate
• For the State: Mr. Sheoshankar Prasad, SC-8
• For the Accountant General: Mr. Satendra Kumar Jha, Advocate

Link to Judgment
MTUjMjAyMDkjMjAxNiMxI04=-BeacGJrZO–am1–Y=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.