-
by Admin
17 February 2026 2:34 PM
“Service records and long marital status cannot be brushed aside by citing executive circulars or criminal case observations” –Telangana High Court reaffirming the primacy of service records, long cohabitation, and legal presumptions in pension matters over departmental assumptions based on criminal proceedings or executive circulars. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the right of the respondent to receive family pension as the widow of a deceased government servant, even though allegations of bigamy were raised against her.
The High Court held that in the absence of any civil court declaration declaring the respondent’s marriage void, the government could not deny her pensionary benefits merely based on executive instructions or criminal proceedings, particularly when she had been recognized throughout in the employee’s official records as his wife and nominee.
“Criminal Court Observations Are Not Binding on Pension Determination” – High Court Rejects State's Reliance on Bigamy Allegations
The case stemmed from a dispute regarding entitlement to family pension following the death of G. Muralidhar Rao, a retired Excise Inspector, who passed away on 13 December 2019. The respondent, G. Vijaya Lakshmi, applied for family pension on the strength of being his officially recorded wife and nominee. However, the State rejected her claim, citing a criminal case (C.C. No. 132 of 2006) filed by another woman, Anantha Lakshmi, who claimed to be the employee’s first wife.
The criminal court had acquitted both the employee and the respondent under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC, but the State relied on that proceeding to claim the marriage to the respondent was void. The High Court rejected this argument, ruling:
“The order or the observations of the criminal Court in a matter involving an offence under Section 498-A IPC are not a final and binding declaration of the marital status, for all purposes, particularly for the determination of entitlement under the Pension Rules”.
It was further held that standard of proof in criminal law differs from civil matters, and observations made in such proceedings cannot be used to override service record entries and long-standing cohabitation.
“The Department Failed to Discharge Its Burden to Prove Marriage Void” – Long Cohabitation with Official Recognition Tilts in Favour of Pension Claimant
The Court emphasized that the burden lay entirely on the State to prove that the respondent was not the legally wedded wife or that her marriage was void, and the State had failed to produce any civil court decree or conclusive evidence to that effect:
“The appellants have failed to produce any conclusive evidence to prove that the respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the employee. The appellants have also failed to conclusively establish that the marriage of the respondent with the employee was void”.
Significantly, the Court noted that:
“In the present case, the employee and the respondent lived together as husband and wife for over 45 years and had three children”.
The Court reaffirmed the legal presumption arising from such prolonged cohabitation, holding that long marital life coupled with continuous official recognition in service records strongly supports a valid marriage.
“Executive Instructions Cannot Override Legal Presumptions or Service Records” – Circulars Denying Pension to Second Wife Held Inapplicable Without Declaration of Void Marriage
The State had relied on executive circulars and the 1964 Conduct Rules, which bar second marriages without government permission and deny pension to second wives if the marriage was contracted without such approval during the lifetime of the first wife.
However, the High Court refused to apply these circulars mechanically, holding:
“The reliance placed by the appellants on executive circular and memos which deny the pension to second wife have no relevance or application to the facts of the present case, when the status of the respondent being second wife itself is not conclusively established by any civil Court”.
It added that service records consistently recording the respondent as the wife and nominee, and the absence of disciplinary action or departmental objection during the employee’s entire service, undermined the State’s claims.
“Nomination in Service Records and Surviving Spouse Status Are Decisive” – Respondent Entitled to Pension as Per Rule 50 of 1980 Pension Rules
The High Court also examined Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which contemplates situations where more than one widow is eligible for family pension. The respondent had argued that even if the State were to assume that both women had some marital status, the rule would still entitle her to a share. But with Anantha Lakshmi having passed away in 2014, the respondent was the only surviving spouse at the time of the employee’s death in 2019.
The Court agreed, holding that the respondent, as the surviving and officially recognized nominee, was fully entitled to receive family pension:
“The learned Single Judge has rightly placed reliance on the service records of the employee and the fact that the respondent was the only surviving wife at the time of employee’s death”.
State Cannot Deny Pension Based on Executive Circulars Without Civil Declaration of Void Marriage
Upholding the decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench concluded that the State’s denial of pension was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It reiterated that long-standing recognition in service records, absence of disciplinary action, and failure to conclusively establish void marriage made the respondent’s entitlement unimpeachable.
“We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellants have failed to make out any case warranting interference... The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed”.
Date of Decision: 2 December 2025
