Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
A Mani vs Southern Railway on 4 March, 2026
1 OA/310/01691/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01691/2024
Dated this the 4th day of March, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
A. Mani,
No.989, Ganapathy Nagar,
Pudhur (post)
Pukkiravari,
Kallakurichi District .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. R. Venkataraman
Vs.
1. The Union of India
rep by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem.
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Krishnamurthy
2 OA/310/01691/2024
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"....... call for all the relevant file of papers/records relating to the issuance of Annexure A-7, A-11, A-
12 & A-13 from the respondents herein & peruse the same; (b) Quash/set aside letter No.SA/P.676/CPGRAMS/E-445385 dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure A-&) issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (c)Quash/set aside the letter No.SA/P.579/Settle/CPGRAM/AM dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure A-11) issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (d) Quash/set aside the letter NO.SA/P.579/Settle/AM dated 24.04.2024(Annexure A-12) issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (e)Quash/set aside the letter No.SA/G.50/PG/2023-2024/CPGRAMS Appeal- 73dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure A-13) issued by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (f)Direct the respondents in this Original Application to include the name of applicant's wife Smt. Thamariselvi in the Pension Payment Order No.20177061000210 issued to the applicant so that she get family pension & other service/financial benefits that are admissible to her in the capacity of wife of the applicant, after the demise of the applicant and (g) pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this cae and thus render justice."
2. The essential facts giving rise to the filing of the present OA are as follows:
3 OA/310/01691/2024 The Applicant was working as a Pointsman in the Salem Division of Southern Railway. The post of Pointsman in the Railways is classified as a safety category post. During a medical examination, he was medically de- categorized and was consequently kept in a supernumerary post. The Applicant retired from Railway service on 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submits that he married one Ms. Rani on 01.05.1979, and through the said marriage they were blessed with two male children and one female child. Out of the two male children, one is a physically challenged person. It is also submitted by him that the said Ms. Rani deserted him in the year 1995, leaving him to take care of the children on his own. Thereafter, the Applicant approached the Village Panchayat for redressal of the family dispute, in which Ms. Rani also participated. Due to the adamant attitude of Ms. Rani, the village elders prepared a written Mahazar, commonly referred to as a "Panchayat Muchalika", narrating the events that transpired during the Panchayat held on 17.06.1996, including the version given by Ms. Rani. The said document was also signed by Ms. Rani. Subsequently, owing to pressure from family elders and in order to take care of his physically challenged child and the other children, the Applicant married Ms. Tamaraiselvi on 21.08.1999. Through the said marriage, the Applicant was blessed with one female child. He further submits that he filed HMOP No.127/2017 4 OA/310/01691/2024 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, seeking dissolution of his marriage with Ms. Rani. By order dated 27.02.2018, the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, dissolved the marriage between the Applicant and Ms. Rani. Thereafter, the Applicant registered his marriage with Ms. Tamaraiselvi before the office of the Sub-Registrar on 22.04.2019. Subsequently, he submitted a representation dated 31.10.2022 requesting the respondents to include the name of his wife, Ms. Tamaraiselvi, in the Railway records so that she may be entitled to receive family pension after his demise. However, the said request was rejected by the respondents through the impugned orders dated 19.03.2024, 24.04.2024, and 26.04.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicant has filed the present OA seeking appropriate relief.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant mainly contends that the respondents have violated the extant instructions governing the subject matter. It is further submitted that the impugned orders are cryptic in nature and do not disclose proper reasons for rejecting the representation of the Applicant. The respondents have also not denied the averment of the Applicant that Ms. Rani, the first wife of the Applicant, had deserted him. It is submitted that in order to take care of the three children, including one physically challenged son, the Applicant was compelled to marry Ms. 5 OA/310/01691/2024 Tamaraiselvi on 21.08.1999. It is also not in dispute that the marriage between the Applicant and his first wife, Ms. Rani, was dissolved by the Sub Court, Kallakurichi.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that when a similar issue came up before this Tribunal in OA No.5/2022, this Tribunal, by order dated 28.04.2023, allowed the said OA. The said order was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No.4570/2024. The Hon'ble Madras High Court, by its order dated 27.02.2024, upheld the order of this Tribunal. The learned counsel drew our attention to the relevant portion of the judgment, which is extracted below:
"5.From the facts on record, it could be seen that the first respondent had divorced his first wife in the year 1977 and the same had been recorded by a divorce deed. Thereafter, he had married one Sagunthala in the year 1979 and this had happened 45 years ago. It is not the case of the petitioner that the first wife of the first respondent had made any claim from the Department, nor it is the case of the petitioner that the said wife had made any claim even against the first respondent.
6.If that being the position, it could only be safely conclude that the first wife of the first respondent had acquiesced herself of the factual position and had not made any claim against her husband.
7.In such circumstances, it could be safely held that the first respondent's marriage with his second wife which had taken place in the year 1979, not questioned by the first wife even as of today would be a valid marriage.
6 OA/310/01691/2024
8.In such circumstances, even though, we have come to a conclusion that the claim of the first respondent is a valid claim, but however, for a different reason that had been assigned by the Tribunal, we find no merits in the Writ Petition to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
9.In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
5. He drew our attention to Sub Rule 7(a)(i) of Rule 75 of Railway Service (Pension) rules 1993 which reads as under:
"Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal share"
Even assuming for the sake of argument without admitting that Ms. Tamaraiselvi is to be treated as second wife of the applicant, it is submitted that as per Sub Rule 75 as stated above. she would be entitled for family pension after demise of the applicant in such a situation rejecting the claim of the applicant is not sustainable in law.
6. Learned counsel also relied on the following judgments in support of his arguments and prayed for the relief sought in the present OA:
(i) Order, dated 28.04.2023 of of this Tribunal in OA No.5/2022, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No.4570/2024.
(ii) Order, dated 28.02.2024 of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in
7 OA/310/01691/2024 OA No.878/2014,
(iii) Judgment, dated 01.07.2020 of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court at Dharwad Bench, in WP No.111260/2017
(iv) Judgment, dated 23.01.2020 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No.34952/2019
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the applicant. He submitted that although the Panchayat Muchalika dated 17.06.1996 is stated to have been signed by both parties and witnessed by village elders, such a document cannot override the statutory provisions governing personal law in India or the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. A Panchayat Muchalika may have relevance in the context of local disputes, particularly those relating to property, as it records the decision or understanding arrived at before a village council regarding ownership or possession of land. However, in the present case, the said document cannot be relied upon as legal evidence in a court of law and does not carry the binding force of a registered instrument such as a Sale Deed or a decree of a competent court. Consequently, it cannot be relied upon to justify or validate a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage.
8 OA/310/01691/2024
8. The learned counsel further submitted that since the first marriage was admittedly subsisting at the time when the alleged second marriage was contracted, the second marriage is void ab initio under the applicable personal law. As per Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a valid Hindu marriage can be solemnized only if neither party has a living spouse at the time of marriage. Further, Section 11 of the said Act declares that any marriage solemnized in contravention of Section 5(i) is null and void. Therefore, the act of contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse has no legal effect in the eyes of law.
9. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that even if certain personal practices may historically have tolerated multiple marriages, the power of the State to enforce monogamy as a measure of social reform is valid and constitutionally permissible, and polygamy cannot be treated as an essential religious practice. Additionally, Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the offence of bigamy.
10. The learned counsel also submitted that since the alleged second marriage is void, the second wife does not acquire any legal status as the 9 OA/310/01691/2024 spouse or widow of the deceased employee. Service jurisprudence and pension laws uniformly recognize only a legally wedded spouse. The relevant pension regulations, including the Railway Pension Rules, define "family" to include only the legally wedded wife of the employee. In several instances, Courts have consistently rejected claims made by a second wife arising out of a void marriage for spousal or pensionary benefits. Therefore, in the present case, the action of the Railway Authorities/respondents in refusing to include the applicant's name in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and service records of the deceased employee is legally justified and in accordance with the applicable rules. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
11. Heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel on both the sides, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. I have also carefully gone through the case laws referred to by them.
12. This Tribunal finds that the issue is no longer res integra, since similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court at Dharwad Bench in W.P.No.111260/2017. Vide its judgment, dated 01.07.2020, the Hon'ble Karnataka held as follows:
10 OA/310/01691/2024 "13. In the present case on hand, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner being the second wife is not entitled for family pension cannot be accepted and the same has to be rejected in the light of the amendment brought to Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The relevant amendment for the purpose of better understanding is culled out hereunder:
"75(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."
14. The Division Bench of High Court of Bombay at Nagpur while interpreting the amended provisions to Rule 75 to the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 was of the view that the provisions of amended Rule 75 made by the Indian 11 Railways is not in conflict or interdiction with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Division Bench expressed that respondents-railways for having brought in the amendment was of the view that this amendment would ultimately achieve the constitutional goal and would protect an unfortunate wife/widow and the amended provision would enable even the second wife to seek pension for survival. The Division Bench while examining the above said amendment also observed the payment of pension to two widows is required to be made in equal share and this would no way burden the treasury or the Indian Railways by inserting the said noble ideal. This judgment is confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11491/2015 by judgment dated 08.05.2015. In this background, I am of the view that insofar as the second wife seeking pension in the light of the amendment to the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 has to be treated as a widow and thereby she is entitled for pension. Though scheme of pension rules in respect of employees did not permit a second wife from seeking family pension, but however, in the present case on hand since the petitioner's husband was an employee of respondent-railways, she has to be treated as widow, in the light of the amendment brought in by the respondent-railways to Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
11 OA/310/01691/2024
15. Having examined the documents and rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondents- Authorities are require to examine the petitioner's case for grant of family pension in terms of the amended provisions of Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and also the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in the case of Un ion of India through General Manager, South East Centre Railway and another Vs Jayawantabai.
16. For the reasons stated supra, writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos .3 to 5 are 13 directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension as per representations submitted as per Annexures-J & K by taking into note of the amended provision of Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay at Nagpur rendered in the case of Union of India through General Manager, South East Centre Railway and another Vs. Jayawantabai. This exercise shall be done by the respondents-authorities within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5262/2023 has dealt with the issue and vide its judgment, dated 18.08.2023, (reported in 2023 INSC 744) held as follows:
"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 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, 12 OA/310/01691/2024 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.
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."
14. A similar issue as that of the applicant herein came up before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C. Sarojini Devi Vs the Director of Local Funds Audits, Chennai ( WP No.34952/2019). The Hon'ble High 13 OA/310/01691/2024 Court allowed the said Writ Petition vide its judgment dated 23.01.2020 in favour of the applicant therein. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
"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 the Family Pension to the petitioner in the case cited supra. Even in the
14 OA/310/01691/2024 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. It is clear from the judgments cited above that the principles laid down therein are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, although the applicant obtained a formal decree of divorce from the competent court only in the year 2019, it is evident from the records that a customary divorce had already been granted by the first wife in writing on 17.06.1996 in the presence of village elders before the 15 OA/310/01691/2024 Village Panchayat. The said document forms part of the exhibits in HMOP No.127/2017 and, therefore, cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is also borne out from the records that the applicant subsequently registered his second marriage with the Marriage Registrar, Nagalur, under Registration No. HMR/Nagalur/29/2019.
16. It is further noted that while the Original Application was pending before this Tribunal, the respondents, on the one hand, rejected the claim of the applicant for recognition of his second wife, but on the other hand issued a Southern Railway Medical Card in favour of the applicant and his wife, Ms. Tamaraiselvi, bearing Medical Card No.15621986275B. This action of the respondents appears inconsistent and has not been satisfactorily explained.
17. In view of the judgments cited supra and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a valid case for relief. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to record the name of the second wife, Ms. Tamaraiselvi, in the service records of the deceased 16 OA/310/01691/2024 employee as his wife and to incorporate the same in the Pension Book as well. The respondents shall carry out the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. In the result, the OA is disposed of on the terms indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(J)
04.03.2026
mas
MA Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
SUNDAR Date: 2026.03.20
13:41:17 +05'30'