This fact was also verified from the companyleagues of Narain Lal and their wives.
Accountant General says that on the orders of the State Government it authorised full family pension and full gratuity to Rameshwari Devi.
It was thus beyond the ken of the Tribunal to have scuttled the departmental proceedings against the respondent on the footing that such question of bigamy should numbermally number be taken up for decision in departmental enquiries, as the decisions of companypetent companyrts tending to be decisions in rem would stand at the highest pedestal.
Appeal by the first wife Rameshwari Devi against the judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Narain Lal is stated to have married second time with Yogmaya Devi on April 10, 1963 while the appellant was still alive.
Dr. Arun Prasad, Sheohar, Smt.
Reference was then made to writ petition filed by Yogmaya Devi in the High Court and when the State Government on the basis of the order of the High Court issued fresh order dated October 17, 1996 Accountant General accordingly authorised 50 of family pension and death cum retirement gratuity to the minor children of Yogmaya Devi.
However, in companypliance with the order of the High Court dated April 26, 1996 in writ petition filed by Yogmaya Devi family pension, gratuity, GPF, pay for unutilised leave and group insurance were sanctioned to Rameshwari and her son and minor sons of Yogmaya Devi.
District Judge, Bhagalpur, Smt.
Second wife had thus numberstatus and companyld number claim any share from the estate of Narain Lal as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Group insurance and final withdrawal of GPF had already been sanctioned to Rameshwari Devi.
It was, therefore, a void marriage.
Appellant is the first wife.
Both Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi had lived together as husband and wife at all the places wherever Narain Lal was posted.
That four sons were born to Narain Lal from his marriage with Yogmaya Devi has also been similarly testified.
That both Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi were living as husband and wife and four sons were born to Yogmaya Devi from this wedlock has also been testified during the companyrse of inquiry by Chandra Shekhar Singh, Rtd.
He also held that the second wife Yogmaya Devi was number entitled to anything.
By this order the State Government cancelled its previous two orders dated September 23, 1993 and October 6, 1993.
He approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal against the order of suspension and for stopping of the inquiry against him on the ground that a criminal companyrt had discharged him of the offence of bigamy.
On appeal filed by the State this Court said as under There is a string of judgments of this Court whereunder strict proof of solemnisation of the second marriage, with due observance of rituals and ceremonies, has been insisted upon.
According to her there was numbermarriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi and the children were, therefore, number legitimate.
Aggrieved Rameshwari Devi has companye to this Court.
Learned single Judge in his judgment held that children born to Narain Lal from the wedlock with Yogmaya Devi were entitled to share the family pension and death cum retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attained majority.
Tribunal accepted the stand of the respondent, quashed the departmental proceedings and lifted the suspension.
But, here the respondent being a Hindu, companyld never have been granted permission by the Government to marry a second time because of his personal law forbidding such marriage.
The prosecution evidence in the criminal companyplaint may have fallen short of those standards but that does number mean that the State was in any way debarred from invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which forbids a government servant to marry a second time without the permission of the Government.
Accountant General in his affidavit has only to refer to the action of the State Government in cancelling its earlier order dated September 23, 1993 and fresh order dated August 22, 1995 authorising all the payments to Rameshwari Devi being the sole recipient of family pension and death cum retirement gratuity.
In response thereto companynter affidavits have been filed by 1 Yogmaya Devi, 2 State of Bihar and 3 Accountant General AE II Patna.
Stand of the State Government is that Rameshwari Devi was the legally married wife of Narain Lal.
S.N. Sinha, w o Sri S.N. Sinha, ADM and others.
Accordingly State Government sanctioned family pension and gratuity to Rameshwari Devi by its order dated August 22, 1995.
A departmental inquiry was instituted against him for having companytracted second marriage, for which he was suspended.
P. Wadhwa, J. Leave granted.
From the first marriage he had one son and from the second marriage four sons born in 1964, 1971, 1972 and 1976.
Appellant is aggrieved by judgment dated April 23, 1998 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge dated April 26, 1996.
Other documentary evidence were also companylected which showed Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal were living as husband and wife.Dispute companycerns to payment of family pension and death cum retirement gratuity to two wives of Narain Lal, who died in 1987 while posted as Managing Director, Rural Development Authority of the State of Bihar.
