Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Valarmathy vs Bsnl on 21 August, 2025
1 OA No. 86/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00086/2025
Dated this 21st day of August, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM: HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
R. Valarmathy,
No.165/1, Abirami Illam,
Pappankadu,
Chennimalai 638 051 ...Applicant
By Advocate : M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs
1. Union of India rep by
The Principal Controller of
Communication Accounts,
Tamilnadu Circle,
No.60, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai 600 008
2. The General Manager,
Telecom/BSNL,
Erode 638 001
3. Joint Controller of
Communication Accounts,
Tamilnadu Circle,
No.60, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai 600 008
2 OA No. 86/2025
4. Deputy Controller of
Communication Accounts,
Tamilnadu Circle,
No.60, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai 600 008.
5. Accounts Officer (Pension)
O/o. the Principal Controller of
Communication Accounts,
Tamilnadu Circle,
No.60, Ethiraj Salai,
Chennai 600 008. ...Respondents
By Advocate : Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC (R1, R3 to R5)
By Advocate : Mr. S. Gopinath (R2)
3 OA No. 86/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"To call for the records of the 5th respondents pertaining to his order made in No.DOT/CCA/TN/PEN/IDA/602006101220919, dated 18.04.2024, and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant from the date of death of her husband C. Raju from 23.06.2023 with arrears of the same and to pass such further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant:
The Applicant is the 2nd wife of (late) C. Raju. Mr. C. Raju was working as CSS, Central Telegraph Office, Erode and retired on superannuation on 31.10.2006. He was granted Pension. The applicant's name was shown in the pension payment order and other relevant records as his wife and claimant of family pension.
Mr. C. Raju died on 22.06.2023. The applicant's husband C. Raju while working at Tirupur got married to Smt. N. Savithri on 08.11.1970 and for more than 15 years no child was born to them. Thereafter, Mr. C. Raju came to Erode on transfer but his wife Savithri refused to come with him as she was working as 4 OA No. 86/2025 Teacher at Tirupur. The applicant states that due to intimate and close relationship with Raju who is her maternal uncle, a girl child was born to them on 16.07.1996, but they did not marry.
Smt. Savithri, his 1st wife filed a petition for divorce and it was allowed by the Court and the marriage of Smt. Savithri with C. Raju was dissolved by a judgement and decree dated 18.07.2000 in HMOP No.8/2000. Subsequently, Mr. C. Raju submitted the copy of the judgement and decree to the 2nd respondent on 18.09.2000 for making necessary entry in his service records. After the dissolution of marriage with his 1st wife, he married the applicant on 06.11.2000. It was a 'suyamariyadhai marriage' which was held in the applicant house in the presence of elder's and close relative by tying 'thali'. Thereafter the applicant's name was included in the service book of C. Raju as a legally wedded wife and the applicant enjoyed all the facilities available in BSNL including BSNL MRS under Medical ID Card No.RC 690 in which her name is shown as wife. The applicant's husband retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2006. PAO (Pay & Accounts) had issued PPO bearing No. 210020919 and joint photo was duly attested was affixed in which the name of the applicant was shown as wife. Pension and Family Pension Revision orders were 5 OA No. 86/2025 issued twice vide No. CCA/TN/IDA/Pre2007/210020919, dated 19.10.2011 & Pr. CCA /TN /Pen /78.2 /Pre /2007 /2016 - 2017, dated 12.07.2017, by the PAO. The applicant's husband expired on 22.06.2023 and as a legally wedded wife of C. Raju, the applicant applied for family pension on 11.07.2023 as authorized in the family pension revision order dated 12.07.2017. The applicant submitted all the relevant records available with her. The PAO informed vide letter dated 18.04.2024 that the applicant's marriage with C. Raju was during the subsistence of his 1st wife Smt. N. Savithri and that the applicant is not eligible for family pension. Challenging the said order the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the marriage of the applicant with C. Raju was not held while his 1st marriage with N. Savithiri was in subsistence. He contended that the 1st marriage of C. Raju with N. Savithri was dissolved by the Court on 18.07.2000, by a judgement and decree in HMOP No.8/2000. Subsequent to the dissolution of the 1st marriage, the applicant married C. Raju on 06.11.2000, and this 6 OA No. 86/2025 was taken on record by the office. This crucial aspect was not properly considered by the 5th respondent.
4. He further submitted that as per Rule 54 (12) CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, revised list of family members in Form 3 was submitted by C. Raju to the Head of Office in which the applicant's name is included and her status is shown as wife. This was accepted and taken on record by the Head of Office, only on the ground that the 1st marriage was not in subsistence and the name of the 1st wife Savithri was deleted form the office record. Thus, the applicant acquired the status of legally wedded 2nd wife of C. Raju which is evident from the office records. Hence, rejecting the claim of the applicant is unjustifiable and also amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. He further submitted that as per the family details furnished in Form 7 of Pension Papers, the name of the applicant is shown as wife and her family pension was assessed and fixed with the due sanction, and authorized by the head of the office, that is the 7 OA No. 86/2025 2nd respondent, therefore, rejecting the claim of the applicant is arbitrary and illegal.
6. He further submitted that PAO issued PPO under No.210209019, dated 23.11.2006, regarding family pension an entry is available in the PPO as 'as and when occasion arise". Later pension and family pension order were issued by the PAO in which family pension is also fixed and authorized. At this juncture, the PAO vide letter dated 12.01.2024 addressed to the 5th respondent for producing marriage certificate by the applicant after her widowhood is not correct. It is impossible for the applicant to produce the marriage certificate after the death of the pensioner. He further submitted the applicant had lived with C. Raju for more than 30 years and fulfilled all the family commitments, BSNL Medical ID cards, Aadhaar Card and Smart Card are the evidence for the same. However, these facts have not been properly gone into by the respondents. He relied on various judgements and therefore, he prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.
8 OA No. 86/2025
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission of the applicant, and he relied on the reply statement filed by him. He contended that from the copy of divorce degree dated 18.07.2000 in HMOP No.8/2000 issued by the Court of the Sub Ordinate Judge at Tirupur, it is confirmed that the marriage held between C. Raju and his 1st wife was dissolved only with effect form 18.07.2000. But as per Form 3 details of family members dated 05.12.2005 submitted at the time of retirement by Shri C. Raju along with pension papers, wherein he has furnished Ms. E. R. Abhiramy as daughter and her date of birth as 10.07.1996. Thus, from the above fact, it is evident that C. Raju has married R. Valarmathy, the applicant prior to 1996 before legally divorcing his 1 st wife Smt R. Savithri. Therefore, the 2nd marriage is illegal and treated as void. Hence, the request of the applicant for grant of family pension to her could not be considered and the claim was rejected.
8. He further drew our attention to that as per GID 5 of Rule 50 of CCS Pension Rules 2021, DOP&PW have clarified that the 9 OA No. 86/2025 2nd wife will not be entitled to family pension as legally wedded wife.
"...under rule 54(7) of the CCS Pension rules 1972, in case a deceased Government servant leaves behind more than one widow or a widow and eligible offspring from another widow, they are entitled to family pension in respect of that deceased government servant. Section 11 of the Act provides that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of the Act shall be null and void and can be annulled against the other party by a decree of nullity if the same contravenes any of the conditions specified in clause (i) (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Act. Section 5 (1) stipulates that the marriage cannot be legally solemnized when either party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.
Therefore, any second marriage by a Hindu male after the commencement of 1955 Act during the life time at his 1st wife was be of nullity and have no legal effect. Such marriage cannot be valid on the ground of any custom. In fact, a custom opposed to an expressed provision of law is of legal effect. So, under these circumstances 2nd wife will not be entitled to the family pension as legally wedded wife".
10 OA No. 86/2025
9. He further submitted that the applicant has not submitted legally valid documentary proof of her marriage taken place after the divorce (ie., 18.07.2000). As per GID 5 below rules 50 of CCs Pension Rules 2021 states that "any second marriage by a Hindu male after the commencement of 1955 Act during the lifetime of his 1st wife will be a nullity and have no legal effect. Such marriage cannot be valid on the ground of any custom. In fact, a custom opposed to an expressed provision of law is of no legal effect. So, under this circumstance, the 2nd wife will not be entitled to the family pension as a legal wedded wife". He further submitted that only as per rule on the subject, the Pension Authorising Authority has scrutinized the claim and as the applicant was found ineligible for family pension as per CCS Pension Rules and the applicant's name was deleted from the PPO of Late Shri C. Raju. There is no violation of rules and the action of the respondents are in order. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
10. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterating the grounds raised in the OA has filed the rejoinder and the 11 OA No. 86/2025 respondents have also filed the reply to rejoinder reiterating the grounds raised in the reply statement.
11. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the pleadings, materials on records and the citations cited by the respective parties.
12. In the present case, there is no dispute that the applicant is the wife of C. Raju. It is clear from the pension papers issued in the year 2011 (Annexure A4) that the applicant's name is recorded as wife. It is further recorded on 18th December 2013, that the applicant is the wife of C. Raju and to read the date of birth of the applicant as 03.09.1964. It is also from the records (Annexure A6) that even in the revised pension appears issued on 12.07.2017, it is clearly mentioned that "In the event of death Shri. Raju C, the revised family pension payable to Smt. Valarmathy R, Wife (whose date of birth 09.03.1964) on or after 10.06.2013 till the date of her marriage or death whichever is earlier as per rate mentioned below :-
Applicable Rate per month Amount (Rs.) Enhanced Rate of family pension 12,765.00 Normal Rate of family pension 7,659.00 "
12 OA No. 86/2025
13. The grounds for rejection of family pension by the respondents is that there is no proof for marriage and the daughter of the applicant, E. R. Abhiramy was born on 10.07.1996, therefore the marriage between the applicant and her husband, C. Raju is not a valid marriage, when the 1st marriage was in subsistence.
14. This Tribunal finds that similar issue came for consideration before the Hon'ble Madras High court in the case of C. Sarojini Devi Vs The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai and ors in WP No.34952 of 2019 & WMP No.35740 of 2019 and vide order dated 23.01.2020, the Hon'ble High Court held as follows. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
"6. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar issue and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannulal and Others Vs. Ganesh Ram and others, this Court had held that the long cohabitation has to be taken into consideration and the wife cannot be denied the Family Pension only on the ground that her second marriage was not valid. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the first respondent requires interference of this Court and the first respondent must be directed to sanction Family Pension to the petitioner with effect from 20.01.2009.13 OA No. 86/2025
Xxxx
12. Even in the above judgment, the petitioner therein had married the Government Employee during the subsistence of the first marriage. The only difference is that in that case, the first marriage got dissolved in the year 2003 and the first wife died in the year 2005. This Court took into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannulal's case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case has held that Law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have co-habituated continuously for a long time. By relying upon this judgment, this Court held that after the dissolution of marriage with the first wife and after her death, the petitioner therein was living with the deceased Government servant till his death. This was taken into consideration by this Court and this Court held that the petitioner therein must be considered to be the wife of the deceased Government servant atleast after the dissolution of the first marriage and the subsequent death of the first wife.
13. This Court is in complete agreement with the proposition of law that has been enunciated in the above judgment. It is very easy to brand the petitioner as a concubine and deprive her of her livelihood. However, the fact remains that the petitioner lived with the deceased Dr. A. Chinnasamy from the year 1975 up to his death in the year 2009. This means that she lived with him for nearly 34 years. The petitioner also gave birth to three children. If the petitioner had made this claim when the first wife is alive, then obviously the petitioner will not be entitled for Family Pension, since her relationship is not recognized by law.
14. The march of law happens only while considering the co-habitation that continues after the death of the first wife. That is the most crucial factor that was taken into consideration by this Court while granting 14 OA No. 86/2025 the Family Pension to the petitioner in the case cited supra. Even in the present case, the first wife died on 02.04.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner lived with the deceased Dr. A. Chinnasamy till his death on 20.01.2009. During this period, it can always be construed that the petitioner and the deceased Dr. A. Chinnasamy were living as husband and wife and their long co-habitation itself raises that presumption of marriage. Added to that the deceased Dr. A. Chinnasamy had also nominated the petitioner on
11.05.1999 to receive the Family Pension after his death.
15. In the considered view of this Court, this Court has to necessarily lean towards the presumption of marriage rather than branding the petitioner as a concubine. This will be the most appropriate way to deal with the facts of the present case, if justice has to be done to the petitioner.
16. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent on 01.02.2016 and accordingly, the same is quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass necessary orders and sanction Family Pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of Dr. A. Chinnasamy i.e., from 20.01.2009 and disburse the arrears of pension to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be continued to be paid with the Family Pension till her life time.
17. This Writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
15. An identical issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shiramabai, Wife of Pundalik Bhave 15 OA No. 86/2025 & others Vs The Captain, Record Officer for OIC Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar & another, in Civil Appeal No.5262 of 2023. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 18.08.2023 is extracted below:
"11. It is no longer res integra that if a man and woman cohabit as husband and wife for a long duration, one can draw a presumption in their favour that they were living together as a consequence of a valid marriage. This presumption can be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that states as follows:
"114. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."
12. In this above context, we may refer to Andrahennedige Dinohamy and Another v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and Others reported in 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51, where the Privy Council observed thus:
".....where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.
xxx xxx xxx "The parties lived together for twenty years in the same house, and eight children were born to them. The husband during his life recognized, by affectionate provisions, his wife and children. The evidence of the Registrar of the District shows that for a long course of years the parties were recognized 16 OA No. 86/2025 as married citizens, and even the family functions and ceremonies, such as, in particular, the reception of the relations and other guests in the family house by Don Andris and Balahamy as host and hostess-- all such functions were conducted on the footing alone that they were man and wife. No evidence whatsoever is afforded of repudiation of this relation by husband or wife or anybody."
13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan And Others, reported in 1929 SCC OnLine PC 21, it was again observing by the Privy council that:
"....The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years......"
14. Similarly, in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527, this Court held as follows:
".......A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy....."
15. In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 460, this Court held as under:
"4. What has been settled by this Court is that if a man and woman live together for long years as husband and wife then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage existing between the two. But the presumption is rebuttable (see Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari31).
16. It is true that there would be a presumption in favour of the wedlock if the partners lived together for a long spell as husband and wife, but, the said 17 OA No. 86/2025 presumption is rebuttable though heavy onus is placed on the one who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin to prove that no marriage had taken place (refer: Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC
520).
17. A similar view has been taken by this Court in Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another reported in (2010) 9 SCC 209, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma(supra) and Dhannulal And Others v. Ganeshram And Another.
18. In the case of Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari alias Usha Rani(supra) this Court observed thus :
"......Continuous cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, the court cannot ignore them."
19. In Kattukandi Edathil Valsan's Case (supra), citing the abovesaid decisions and relying on Section 114 of the Evidence Act, this Court held in the facts of the said case that there was a presumption of the marriage between the parents of the plaintiffs on the ground of their long cohabitation status, entitling their offspring to claim their share in the suit schedule property.
20. It can be discerned from the aforesaid line of decisions that the law infers a presumption in favour of a marriage when a man and woman have continuously cohabitated for a long spell. No doubt, the said presumption is rebuttable and can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. When there is any circumstance that weakens such a presumption, courts ought not to ignore the same. The burden lies heavily on the party who seeks to 18 OA No. 86/2025 question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of a legal sanctity.
21. In the instant case, if the period up to the year 1990 was to be excluded as the marriage between Late Subedar Bhave and Anusuya had got dissolved only on 15th November, 1990, fact remains that even thereafter, the deceased had continued to cohabit with the appellant No. 1 for eleven long years, till his demise in the year 2001. The appellant No.1 was the mother of two children born from the relationship with the deceased, namely, appellants Nos.2 and 3. Appellants No.2 and 3 have been held entitled to the estate of the deceased by virtue of the order passed by the High Court on the Review application moved by them. In the above background, a presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of the validity of the marriage between the deceased and the appellant No. 1, more so, when during his life time, the deceased had approached the respondent authorities for seeking deletion of the name of his previous wife - Anusuya from his service record and for endorsement of the name of the appellant No. 1 therein, which was duly acted upon by the respondents vide letter dated 05th July, 1999. It is also not in dispute that the ex- wife did not claim any pension from the respondents on the demise of Subedar Bhave.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment dated 25th June, 2013, passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad endorsing the order dated 16th September, 2010, passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikodi is restored. The appellant No.1 is held entitled to receive the pension payable on the demise of Late Subedar Bhave. As for the appellants No. 2 and 3, they would be entitled to the said relief till the date they attained the age of 25 years.
19 OA No. 86/2025
23. The appeal is allowed on the above terms while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Devi Vs Chief General Manager & Others in Civil Appeal No. 8032 of 2024, vide order dated 26.07.2024, has taken a similar view and the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
"The facts of the case, as noted above, are rather peculiar, for it is not disputed that Radha Devi had continued to live as a spouse with Jay Narayan Maharaj, after the death of his first wife, Ram Sawari Devi @ Sawari Devi, in 1984.
Position of Radha Devi as a 'spouse' is not really disputed as such by the respondent, SECL, except on the ground that her marriage was solemnized with Jay Narayan Maharaj during the subsistence of his first marriage.
We would, in these circumstances, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and in order to do complete justice, observe that Jay Narayan Maharaj and Radha Devi had lived and cared for each other, post the death of Ram Sawari Devi @ Sawari Devi on 20.04.1984. Radha Devi at the old age should not be denied the 'status of spouse', which entitles her to receive family pension. This would help her live with dignity and help her financially. In view of the aforesaid position, we exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that Radha Devi shall be paid family pension with effect from 01.01.2010 till today on or before 31.12.2024. She will receive family pension till her death.20 OA No. 86/2025
Radha Devi will furnish all details and particulars to the Manager, SECL, and complete formalities within a period of eight weeks from today.
In case the payment of arrears is not made within the said period, the respondent, SECL, will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.
Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
17. When all the authorities have accepted that the applicant is wife of the deceased C. Raju, now they cannot claim and ask for proof of marriage certificate solemnized between C. Raju and the applicant. Even assuming there is no marriage certificate, the judgment cited supra will come to the rescue of the applicant. It is also clear and evident that the applicant married C. Raju on 06.11.2000 after obtaining the divorce from the 1st wife, Savithri. E. R. Abhiramy would have born on 10.07.1996, but that itself will not prove that the applicant married C. Raju before obtaining divorce. These details were already submitted by the applicants' husband C. Raju while in service and which was accepted by the authorities. Therefore, the reasons given by the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for grant of family pension cannot be accepted, and that too after 20 years. 21 OA No. 86/2025
18. In the above said circumstances, and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, this Tribunal is convinced with the submission of the applicant. In view of the same, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the respondent and consequently direct the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant from 23.06.2023 pursuant to the date of death of her husband, C. Raju with arrears within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
19. In the result the OA is allowed on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M. Swaminathan) Member (J) 21.08.2025 SKSI