Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Shakuntal Devi vs General Manager N C Rly on 25 February, 2026
AFR
(Reserved on 17.02.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 1485 of 2013
With
Original Application No. 194 of 2013
And
Original Application No. 1737 of 2012
Pronounced on 25th February, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
(O.A. No. 1485/2013)
Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Late Pramod Kumar urf "Bedharak" aged
about 49 years, Ex-Peon, Electric Department, General Manager's office,
N.C. Railway, Allahabad under r/o 7/4-A, Bhusauli Tola, Khuldabad,
Allahabad.
........... Applicant in OA No. 1485/2013
By Advocate: Shri M.K Dhrubvanshi/Shri Shiv Kumar.
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, HQ Subedarganj, Allahabad 211033.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, HQ Subedarganj,
Allahabad.
3. GM (P)/CPO, North Central Railway, HQ Subedarganj,
Allahabad.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
4. Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
5. F.A. & CAO, North Central Railway, HQ Subedarganj, Allahabad
211033.
6. Smt. Shimla Devi, 44, Purani Laskar Line Purana Virahna, Navin
Mahila Seva Sadar, Inter College Ke Pas, Allahabad 211003.
------- Respondents in OA No. 1485/2013
By Advocate: Shri Rishi Kumar (R-1 to 5)
Shri Vinod Kumar (R-6)
Page 1 of 19
Along With
O.A. No. 194/2013
1. Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/o Late Pramod Kumar urf "Pramod
Kumar Bedharak" aged about 49 years, ex-Peon, Electric Department,
General Manager's office, N.C. Railway, Allahabad r/o 7/4-A, Bhusauli
Tola, Khuldabad, Allahabad.
2. Sumit Kumar aged about 14 years son of Late Pramod Kumar ur
Pramod Kumar Bedharak C/o & under guardianship of Smt. Shakuntala
Devi w/o Late Pramod Kumar urf "Pramod Kumar Bedharak" r/o 7/4-A,
Bhusauli Tola, Khuldabad, Allahabad.
........... Applicants in OA No. 194/2013
By Advocate: Shri M.K Dhrubvanshi
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, HQ Subedarganj, Allahabad 211033.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, HQ Subedarganj,
Allahabad.
3. GM (P)/CPO, North Central Railway, HQ Subedarganj,
Allahabad.
4. Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA New Delhi.
5. Smt. Shimla Devi, r/o 44, Old Laskar Line, Old Bairahna, near,
Navin Mahila Seva Sadar Inter College, Allahabad 211003.
------- Respondents in OA No. 194/2013
By Advocate: Shri Rishi Kumar (R-1 to 4)
Shri Vinod Kumar (R-5)
O.A. No. 1737/2012
Smt. Shimla Devi widow of Late Pramod Kumar Bedharak R/o 44, Old
Lascar Line, Old Bairahana, Allahabad.
------Applicant in OA No. 1737/2012
Page 2 of 19
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway
(Headquarters), Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The General Manager (Personnel)/Chief Personnel Officer, North
Central Railway (Headquarters), B- Block, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
------ Respondents in OA No. 1737/2012
By Advocate: Shri Shivaji Singh
ORDER
Since the cause of action and relief sought by all the applicants in the aforesaid O.As are common, hence with the consent of learned counsel for parties, all the O.As have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. The present original applications have been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
Relief in OA No.1485/2013(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the MANISH KUMAR impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 vide their letters SRIVASTAVA dated 30.3.2012 (Annexure A-1), order dated 5/7.2012 (Annexure A-2) passed by General Manager/P (CPO) N.C. Railway and order communicated by General Manager (P) /NCR/Allahabad vide letter dated 23.5.2013 (Annexure A-3) vide which applicant was debarred from getting family pension and other settlement dues.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to grant Family Pension, DCRG, LE., GIS and other admissible settlement dues and last month's salary etc of her husband which were arbitrarily denied by the respondents disregarding the similar and identical settled case law decided by the Hon'ble CAT / Ernakulum Bench in case of Vijayamma vs. Union of India and Ors. [2002 (1) ATJ Page 611] and Apex Court judgement delivered in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others (2000) 2 SCC 431).
(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of Provident Fund as per Nomination made in favour of the Page 3 of 19 applicant in Provident Fund Account of her husband late Pramod Kumar Bedharak.
(iv) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of interest @ 18% compound with 50,000/- as compensation for making undue harassment to the poor widow applicant.
(v) Any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
(vi) Cost of the Application may also be awarded"
Relief in OA No.194/2013
(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the
impugned order passed by the Chief Personnel Officer N.C.Railway Allahabad vide Order dated 5.11.2012 communicated vide letter dated 7.11.2012 Annexure A-1) along with order dated 30.3.2012 (Annexure A-2) and direct the Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on account of death of her husband on the basis of railway official records available and on the basis of records supplied by the applicant keeping in view of the distress condition of the deceased family of Late Late Pramod Kumar urf Pramod Kumar Bedharak and also in view of the similarly situated and identical judgement / order decided by the Hon'ble CAT/Ernakulum Bench in case of Vijayamma vs. Union of India and Ors. | O.A. No. 644 of 2001 on 13.12.2001 | 2002 (1) ATJ Page 611]
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to give all other resultant and consequential benefits as admissible under the Rules to the applicant as a result of death of her husband Late Pramod Kumar urf Pramod Kumar 'Bedharak during service as a railway employee as per case law laid down in case of Vijayamma vs. Union of India and Ors. MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
(iii) Any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
(iv) Cost of the Application may also be awarded".
Relief in OA No.1737/2012"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the Respondent No. 2, so far as it relates to the petitioner which directs the petitioner to obtain succession certificate from the competent court of law and to submit the same with the further stipulation that without the succession certificate claim for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered (Annexure-A-1 to Compilation No. 'I' of this petition).
Page 4 of 19(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of her daughter Km. Priyanka Mayank on compassionate ground on any suitable Group 'C' post without compelling the petitioner to obtain succession certificate with a further direction to the Respondent No. 2 to follow the mandatory provisions of the Railway Board's Circular No. E (NG)II/91/RC-1/136 dated 02.01.1992 and to grant appointment, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
(iv) to award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner".
3. The brief facts of the case are that late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak, son of Late Shri Chhotey Lal, was working in a regular capacity as Peon in the Electrical Department under the North Central Railway, Allahabad. He died in harness on 07.12.2011. The applicant in OA Nos. 1485/2013 claims to be the widow of the deceased employee, stating that her marriage with Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak was solemnized on 02.05.2005. It is her case that during the lifetime of the deceased employee, her name and the names of her children were duly recorded in official Railway records, including Medical Identity Card and Privilege Pass records and she and her children were wholly dependent upon the deceased employee. After the death of the deceased employee, the applicant in OA Nos. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 submitted representations seeking compassionate appointment and other terminal benefits. However, the Railway Administration vide order dated 30.03.2012 directed her to obtain a succession certificate from a MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA competent court for considering her claim. Similarly, Smt. Shimla Devi (applicant in OA No. 1737/2012) is claiming to be the legally wedded first wife and widow of the deceased Railway employee. According to her, no decree of divorce was ever passed by any competent court either dissolving her marriage with the deceased employee. It is the case of Smt. Shimla Devi that the alleged second marriage of the deceased employee was unlawful and void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. On this basis, she claims exclusive entitlement to family pension, retiral benefits and compassionate appointment. Applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 submitted a representation dated 12.12.2011 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter, Km. Priyanka Mayank and also to release the pensionary and retiral benefits. The said Page 5 of 19 representation was also not decided on merits. Instead, the Railway Administration vide order dated 30.03.2012 directed submission of a succession certificate as a precondition for consideration of claims relating to compassionate appointment and other service benefits. Both claimants have challenged the insistence of production of succession certificate as being contrary to Railway Board Circulars dated 01.01.1992 / 02.01.1992 and the settled legal position that compassionate appointment and family pension cannot be denied merely on the ground of inter se dispute, particularly when dependency and service records exist. Thus, rival Original Applications have been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Shimla Devi, each asserting entitlement to compassionate appointment and service benefits arising out of the death of Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak and both assailing the impugned orders of the Railway Administration by which succession certificate was insisted.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the official respondents have filed counter Affidavit, in which it has been stated that Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak, son of Late Shri Chhote Lal, was working as a Peon in the Electrical Department/Loco Engineer Branch under North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad. He died in harness on 07.12.2011. After his death, two rival claims for compassionate appointment were received by the Railway Administration. Firstly, Smt. Shimla Devi, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee MANISH KUMAR submitted an application dated 12.12.2011 seeking compassionate SRIVASTAVA appointment in favour of her daughter, Kumari Priyanka Mayank. Subsequently, Smt. Shakuntala Devi also submitted an application dated 22.12.2011 claiming compassionate appointment for herself, asserting that she was the wife of the deceased employee. In view of the rival claims, the matter was enquired into by the Personnel Inspector (Headquarters). The Personnel Inspector submitted a report dated 12.01.2012. According to which Smt. Shimla Devi was married to the deceased employee in the year 1978 and had unmarried daughter and married son. The report further stated that Smt. Shimla Devi had lived with the deceased employee for about ten years after marriage and was presently residing with her retired Sub-Inspector brother at Bairahana, Page 6 of 19 Allahabad. Considering the existence of two claimants asserting themselves to be legal heirs of the deceased employee, the matter was placed before the competent authority. Legal advice was also obtained. In order to avoid wrongful disbursement of service benefits and compassionate appointment, both claimants were asked to submit a succession certificate issued by a competent court. Accordingly, a letter dated 30.03.2012 was issued, calling upon the claimants to submit the succession certificate so that further action could be taken in accordance with law. The said letter did not reject the claim of either claimant and was only a procedural step. Being aggrieved, Smt. Shakuntala Devi filed O.A. No. 1106 of 2012 before this Tribunal. The said Original Application was disposed of on 22.08.2012 with a direction to the respondents to consider her representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance with the Tribunal's directions, the representation of Smt. Shakuntala Devi was duly considered and a reasoned and speaking order dated 05.11.2012 was passed by the Chief Personnel Officer, which was in accordance with the applicable rules and legal advice. Smt. Shimla Devi has also filed O.A. No. 1737 of 2012 seeking compassionate appointment for her daughter. However, the respondents submit that no final order rejecting her claim has been passed till date. The respondents contend that the letter dated 30.03.2012 is not a final order affecting the rights of the applicant, but only a request for submission of succession certificate. Therefore, in the absence of any final decision, the Original Applications are premature under Sections 19 MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA and 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is the case of the respondents that all actions taken by the Railway Administration are strictly in accordance with rules and law, and the requirement of succession certificate is justified in view of the competing claims. Hence, the Original Applications deserve to be dismissed as premature and devoid of merit.
5. In reply to the counter affidavits, applicants have filed rejoinder affidavits opposing the contentions as made in the counter affidavits while reiterating the averments as already advanced in the OAs. Nothing new has been averred in the rejoinder affidavits.
Page 7 of 196. I have heard Shri M.K Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013, Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 and for the private respondents in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the official respondents in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 and Shri Shivaji Singh, learned counsel for the official respondents in OA No. 1737/2012 and have perused the record.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1485/2013 is that the applicant was married to Late Shri Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Bedharak on 02.05.2005 after his first wife, Smt. Shimla Devi, had voluntarily deserted him and refused to live with him. This fact is borne out from judicial records. As in several proceedings initiated by Smt. Shimla Devi under Sections 125 Cr.P.C. and 494 IPC, she herself categorically stated before the competent criminal courts that she did not want to reside with her husband, resulting in dismissal of those cases. These facts clearly establish long and continuous desertion. Learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 further argued that the deceased employee belonged to the 'Shudra/Hela' community, in which prolonged desertion is recognized as divorce under customary law. Such customary divorce has been judicially recognized holding that in the 'Shudra' community continuous desertion results in dissolution of marriage. Thus she is the legally MANISH KUMAR wedded wife of deceased employee. Learned counsel for the applicants SRIVASTAVA in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 next argued that during the lifetime of the deceased employee, the Railway Administration itself treated the applicant as his wife. Her name and the names of her children were duly entered in official Railway records, including Medical Identity Card, Privilege Pass records and other service-related family records. These entries were made by the competent authorities after due verification and remained unquestioned throughout the lifetime of the employee. Learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 also argued that from the wedlock between the applicant and the deceased employee, two daughters and one son were born. All the children were dependent on the deceased employee and Page 8 of 19 were duly recorded as his children in Railway records. The legitimacy and entitlement of the children cannot be questioned in law particularly for the purpose of family pension and other service benefits, which are meant to protect the dependents of a deceased employee. It is further submitted that the insistence on production of a succession certificate is wholly arbitrary and contrary to settled law, particularly when the applicant's name is already recorded in service records, dependency is admitted, and no competent civil court has declared the marriage void. It is further submitted that compassionate appointment, family pension, provident fund and other terminal benefits are governed by service rules and administrative instructions and not by the law of succession. The applicant, being the nominee, is legally entitled to provident fund, GIS and unpaid salary without any requirement of succession certificate. Non-payment of these statutory dues and non-forwarding of requisite forms by the department itself amount to malice in law. Consequently, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the official respondents be directed to release all admissible dues forthwith with interest treating the applicant as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee for all service purposes. Learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1485/2013 and OA No. 194/2013 has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) M. Govindaraju Vs. K. Munisami Gounder (D) and others reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 10;
(ii) Smt. M. Samadhanam Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (P), Secunderabad
MANISH KUMAR reported in 2009 (2) ESC 1203 (AP);
SRIVASTAVA
(iii) Union of India through Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others Vs. Haruli Devi reported in 2025 (9) ADJ 123 (LB);
(iv) Haruli Devi Vs. Union of India and others decided on 30.11.2021 in OA No. 256 of 2020 by Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow;
(v) Prakash Saxena Vs. Union of India and others decided on 13.12.2018 in OA No. 924 of 2012 by this Tribunal.
(VI) Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P and others in writ A No. 60881 of 2015 decided on 04.12.2015 by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court.
(vii) Smt. Madhuri Mishra Vs. State of U.P and others in Writ 'A' No. 1811 of 2023 decided on 16.3.2023
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 argued that the applicant, Smt. Shimla Devi, is the undisputed first legally wedded wife of the deceased Railway servant Late Shri Pramod Page 9 of 19 Kumar Bedharak. Their marriage was solemnized long prior to the alleged second marriage and no decree of divorce was ever passed by any competent court dissolving this marriage during the lifetime of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 also argued that in the absence of a valid divorce, the marriage between the deceased employee and the second claimant, Smt. Shakuntala Devi is void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Consequently, Smt. Shakuntala Devi cannot acquire the legal status of wife or widow for the purpose of service or pensionary benefits under Railway rules. Learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 also argued that the Railway Board's Circular No. E(NG)II/91/RC-1/136 dated 02.01.1992 clearly provides that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be granted to a second wife or her children unless the second marriage was permitted by the administration in accordance with personal law. Admittedly, no such permission was ever granted in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 next argued that the respondents failed to apply the aforesaid binding Railway Board circular and instead mechanically insisted upon a succession certificate, which is not a pre-condition either for consideration of compassionate appointment or for release of service benefits under the applicable service rules. Learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 1737/2012 also contended that the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment in favour of her daughter, Km. Priyanka Mayank was required to be considered on merits, keeping in view the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA financial hardship of the family rather than being rejected or kept pending due to the rival and legally untenable claim of the second claimant. It is submitted that the applicant is an illiterate widow, with no independent source of income. After the death of the sole breadwinner, the family is facing acute financial distress. The condition of the family squarely satisfies the object of compassionate appointment, which is to prevent destitution. It has also been argued that non-release of family pension, retiral and terminal benefits to the applicant, despite her status as the legally wedded wife, is arbitrary and illegal. Such benefits are governed by service rules and cannot be withheld merely because of a rival claim has been made from a person whose marriage has no legal sanction.
Page 10 of 199. Learned counsels for the official respondents in all the OAs argued that the deceased employee left behind two rival claimants, namely Smt. Shimla Devi and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, both claiming the status of widow and seeking compassionate appointment and settlement dues. In such a situation, the Railway Administration was duty-bound to act with caution so as to avoid wrongful disbursement of public funds or grant of compassionate appointment to an ineligible person. Therefore, insisting upon a succession certificate was a legally sound and neutral course of action. Learned counsel for the official respondents further argued that Smt. Shakuntala Devi produced documents such as Medical Identity Card, Pass records, PF nomination form, ration card and joint bank account showing that she and her children were treated as family members of the deceased employee during his lifetime. On the other hand, Smt. Shimla Devi produced a family member certificate issued by the Tehsildar, which lists both claimants as first and second wife. Thus, the official records themselves do not conclusively establish exclusive entitlement of either claimant. Learned counsel for the official respondents also argued that the Railway Board Circular dated 02.01.1992 clarifies that compassionate appointment to a second wife or her children is not to be considered unless second marriage was permitted. However, the same circular also contemplates that settlement dues may be shared on merits or as per court orders. In the present case, since both widows are claiming settlement dues and the marital status itself is disputed, the respondents rightly sought a succession certificate MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA to comply with the circular in a lawful manner. Hence, the said communication cannot be treated as an adverse or punitive order. It is next argued that Smt. Shakuntala Devi approached the Tribunal in OA No. 1106/2012, the Tribunal directed the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance thereof, the competent authority considered all materials, representations, service records and legal advice and passed a detailed order dated 05.11.2012. The plea of customary divorce raised by Smt. Shakuntala Devi involves disputed facts requiring strict proof of custom, continuity and legal recognition. Such determination cannot be made administratively. Until such custom is recognized by a competent court, the respondents cannot assume validity of the second marriage. Thus, it is submitted that the respondents have Page 11 of 19 acted in a neutral and non-discriminatory manner. Thus, learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the impugned communication dated 30.03.2012 is only procedural, the claims are still open for consideration upon submission of succession certificate, and therefore, the Original Applications are premature, misconceived and devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire records.
11. Before discussing the submission raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the Rule 75 (7) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993:-
" (7) (i) (a) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares".
(b) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension, shall become payable to her eligible child:
Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal share, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her.
(ii) Where the deceased railway servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the railway servant or pensioner:
Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares not lapse but shall be payable to the other widow or widows MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA or the other child or children otherwise eligible in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.
(iii) Where the deceased railway servant or pensioner is survived by widow but has left behind child or children from a divorced wife or wives, such child or children if they satisfy other conditions of the eligibility for payment of family pension shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of death of the railway servant or pensioner had she not been so divorced :
Provided on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widow or widows or to the child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.
(iv) where the family pension is payable to twin children, it shall be paid to such children in equal shares:
Provided that when one such child ceases to be eligible, his or her share shall revert to the other child and when both of them cease to be eligible Page 12 of 19 the family pension shall be payable to the next eligible single or twin children as the case may be. (Authority: Railway Board's letter No. 2011/F (E) III/1(1)9dated 23.09.13)".
12. It is not in dispute in the present matter that Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak was a regular Railway employee and that he died in harness on 07.12.2011. It is also evident from the record that two women, namely Smt. Shimla Devi and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, are claiming themselves to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.From the pleadings of the parties, it is also clear that Smt. Shimla Devi was the first wife of the deceased. Smt. Shakuntala Devi claims that several litigations relating to matrimonial disputes between the first wife, namely Smt. Shimla Devi, and Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak were pending. However, no document has been brought on record by Smt. Shakuntala Devi to establish that, at any point of time, the marital tie between Smt. Shimla Devi and Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak was dissolved. It is also evident that children were born from both relationships, i.e., from the wedlock of the first wife as well as the second wife.
13. A submission has been raised on behalf of Smt. Shakuntala Devi (the second wife) that the marriage between the first wife, Smt. Shimla Devi, and the late employee, Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak, came to an end on the ground of desertion, as the first wife was residing at her parental (matrimonial) home after filing a maintenance suit and had deserted her husband. Although the maintenance suit was not allowed, it MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA is contended that she never returned to the house of her husband. It is further argued that since Smt. Shimla Devi started living at her parental home and did not return to her husband's house, the marital tie between Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak and Smt. Shimla Devi stood dissolved. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Govindaraju (supra). The plea further is that, as both the late employee and the first wife belonged to the 'Shudra' community of the Hindu sect, and Smt. Shimla Devi had wilfully abandoned the house of her husband, no marital tie subsisted between the first wife and the late employee by virtue of customary rights. To analyse this issue, this Tribunal has examined the judgment referred to hereinabove and is of the Page 13 of 19 considered view that the ratio laid down in M. Govindaraju (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Though the late employee also belonged to the 'Shudra' community, he was a resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereas the parties in M. Govindaraju (supra) were residents of the State of Karnataka. A presumption regarding the breakdown or dissolution of a marital tie on the ground of desertion can be drawn only when sufficient evidence is placed on record to establish the existence and prevalence of a customary right in the society or particular sect to which the parties belong. No such evidence has been adduced on behalf of Smt. Shakuntala Devi. Consequently, no such presumption can be drawn by placing reliance on the decision in M. Govindaraju (supra). The custom prevalent in the 'Gounder' community in the State of Karnataka cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case in the District Prayagraj UP by general application in regard to 'Sudra' community.
14, Certainly, in the present matter, Smt. Shimla Devi is the first legally wedded wife of the late employee. The marriage between the late employee and Smt. Shimla Devi was never dissolved, and no order to that effect has been passed by any competent court. Thus, it can safely be held that the marriage of the late employee with Smt. Shimla Devi continued to subsist. Any marriage, if at all, solemnised by the late employee with Smt. Shakuntala Devi during the subsistence of his first marriage, without obtaining a decree of divorce from the first wife, MANISH KUMAR clearly establishes that such second marriage is in violation of the SRIVASTAVA provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Mere living together for a long time as a husband and wife will also not sufficient to held the second marriage a valid marriage particularly when first marriage is subsisting. The view taken by this Tribunal finds support from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431, as well as from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others (Writ 'A' No. 3288 of 2017, decided on 31.07.2019). Since Rameshwari Devi (supra) has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is settled that a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage under Hindu law cannot be validated.
Page 14 of 1914. The applicant, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, also does not derive any benefit from the decision in Haruli Devi (supra), passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lucknow, or from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court at Lucknow in the writ petition filed against the said decision, as the judgment in Haruli Devi (supra) was rendered on the specific finding that the second marriage had been solemnised after the dissolution of the first marriage.
15. In Smt. M. Samadhanam (supra), the decision was rendered in a situation where both wives had entered into a compromise and had filed a declaratory suit, which was decided by a competent court of law in Lok Adalat proceedings. Since no such facts is available in the present matter, thus, applicant Shakuntala Devi can also not get any help with the decision of M. Samadhanam (supra) case.
16. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, there remains no manner of doubt that Smt. Shakuntala Devi marriage with late employee Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak subsisting the first marriage was not a valid marriage and Smt. Shakuntala Devi is not legally wedded wife of late employee.
17. Now the question is whether as per the provision contained in Rule 75 (7) (i) (a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides to disburse the pension amount in equal share to the widows of late employee, direction could be given to disburse family pension in MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA favour of both widows. This question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. Pushpa Vs. Smt. Y. Jansi Rani and others in Writ petition No. 15979 of 2022 decided on 20.12.2023 wherein Hon'ble Karnataka High Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed in Union of India through General Manager, South East Centre Railway and another Vs. Jayawantabai decided on 20.11.2014 in Writ Petition No. 4467 2014 has held that Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 operate in a different scenario altogether and pension is, trite, paid in terms of the Rules. Whatever Rule that is applicable for grant of pension would be invoked for payment of pension or otherwise. Therefore, rights of the employees or their family will always depend on the Pension Rules. It was also Page 15 of 19 observed that Division Bench of the Bombay High Court holds and prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex, while Article 39 (a) of Constitution provides for securing adequate means of livelihood for men and women equally, which also provides for ensuring health and strength for women. Pension Rules recognize the equal share in family pension, in such a situation, therefore, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court further observing that there is no contradiction between the provision of Hindu Marriage Act as well as Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 legalize the disbursement of pension in equal share between the children of first wife and second wife.
18. A similar issue has, on many occasions, come up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. In Chandra Kali (supra), while discussing the law laid down in Rameshwari Devi (supra), it has been held that a Hindu cannot contract a second marriage after the enforcement of the Hindu Marriage Act if either of the parties has a living spouse. Such a marriage would be a nullity in the eyes of law and would not be protected under the Conduct Rules or the Pension Rules. Therefore, it follows that the expression "second wife", as referred to under the Rules, Civil Services Regulations and U.P Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, would include only such a second wife whose marriage was otherwise permissible under the personal law or the law prevalent at the time of marriage. However, in the case of Hindus, the second wife would have no right whatsoever, as the law prohibits a second marriage so long MANISH KUMAR as the government servant has a living spouse. SRIVASTAVA
19. Although the issue involved in Chandra Kali (supra) arose under a different set of Rules, the core issue in Chandra Kali (supra) and Smt. Pushpa (supra) is identical. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rameshwari Devi (supra) has categorically held that a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage is void, no manner of doubt remains that a decision cannot be taken on the basis of the law laid down in Smt. Pushpa (supra).
20. Thus, I am of the considered view that the word "widows" occurring in Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 denotes only a legally wedded wife. It cannot be extended to include a Page 16 of 19 wife of an illegal or void marriage. A question may arise as to why the word "widows" has been used in Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. It appears that the said expression has been employed by the legislature to meet contingencies where a second marriage is permissible and legally valid under the applicable personal law. The same cannot be equated with situations where a second marriage itself is impermissible in law.
21. The next issue for consideration in this matter is that whether pension would be admissible to only Smt. Shimla Devi who is the legally wedded first wife of the late employee and is alive or to Smt. Shakuntala Devi whose marriage is void.
22. I am of the considered view that family pension can only be allowed to Smt. Shimla Devi and it cannot be equally shared in between two widows as second marriage is not a legal marriage as has been discussed hereinabove.
23. As far as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, an argument has been advanced on behalf of Smt. Shimla Devi that, since she is the only legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and the Railway Board Circulars dated 01.01.1992 / 02.01.1992 clearly provide that the son of a second wife is not eligible for compassionate appointment, thus, only prayer made by her can be considered for compassionate appointment. It has further been pleaded on her behalf MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA that her daughter, for whom compassionate appointment is sought, though married, is not disqualified in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) and Smt. Madhuri Mishra (supra), wherein the disqualification attached to married daughters has been removed by Hon'ble High Court. This issue also came up for consideration before this Tribunal in Prakash Saxena (supra). The Tribunal, while discussing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Union of India and Others vs. Amit Kashyap and Two Others, decided in Writ Petition No. 51707 of 2015 on 14.11.2017, held that the restriction contained in the Railway Board Circular dated 02.01.1992, insofar as it restricts children of the second wife from consideration for compassionate appointment, has been Page 17 of 19 declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Smt. Namita Golder & Another vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 14.07.2010 in W.P.C.T. No. 20 of 2010. It was further held that children born out of the wedlock of a government servant from a second marriage are legitimate children and, therefore, cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment, provided they fulfill the prescribed eligibility requirements. Since compassionate appointment is to be made only after due enquiry in accordance with the rules, keeping in view the financial distress of the family and the eligibility criteria, it was held that children born from the second marriage are also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
24. In the impugned order, the respondents, although having recorded the factum of two marriages and the details of the children of the late employee, instead of passing an order for disbursal of the pension amount to the entitled person, directed the parties to first obtain a succession certificate. This shows that the duty cast upon the competent authority under the service rule has not been performed in accordance with law. Family pension and other retiral benefits are consequences of the services rendered by the late employee to the Department and there are clear provisions governing the same under the relevant Rules. Therefore, the respondents ought to have conducted an enquiry and disbursed the benefits to the entitled person. Since in view of the aforesaid discussion, it has been held that only the first wife, namely MANISH KUMAR Smt. Shimla Devi is entitled to family pension, the respondents are SRIVASTAVA hereby directed to release the family pension in her favour. There is no requirement to await for a succession certificate for release of the family pension, as the status of the first wife has already been declared hereinabove.
25. So far as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, there is no legal impediment in considering the claim for compassionate appointment, nor there is any requirement of a succession certificate for the said purpose. From the pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the existence of children born out of the wedlock of the first wife as well as the second wife is not in dispute. Accordingly, in the facts and Page 18 of 19 circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to take a decision on the prayer for compassionate appointment in the light of the discussion made hereinabove and in accordance with the applicable Rules, after making a proper enquiry without insisting the succession certificate.
26. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.03.2012 and 23.05.2013 (in respect of OA No. 1485/2013), the impugned orders dated 05.11.2012, 07.11.2012 and 30.03.2012 (in respect of OA No. 194/2013), and the order dated 30.03.2012 (in respect of OA No. 1737/2012) are hereby quashed and set aside.
27. All the aforesaid Original Applications s tand disposed of in terms of the above directions. The competent authorities among the respondents are directed to take decisions on all the issues in the manner discussed hereinabove within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. All connected Misc. Applications also stand disposed of. Copies of this order shall be placed on record in OA No. 194/2013 and OA No. 1737/2012 as well.
(Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (J) Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page 19 of 19