Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Dhanjita Deka vs M/O Railways on 25 April, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 040/00146/2021
HON'BLE MR. M L SRIVASTAVA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shri Dhanjita Deka
Wife of Late Gouri Prasad Deka
Vill- Niz Namati, P.O. Niz Namati
P.S.Tihu, Dist-Nalbari (Assam)
Pin-781355
...Applicant
By Advocates: S/Shri G Kakati , P.Thakuria & D Khaklari
- Vs-
1. The Union of India
Represented by the General Manager
N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati - 781011,
District Kamrup (M)(Assam)
2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Rangia Division N. F. Railway, Rangia, Pin-781365,
District- Kamrup, (Assam)
3. Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/WS/NBQ
N. F. Railway, New Bongaigaon,
District Bongaigaon (Assam)
Pin-783381
4. Smti Makani Deka
Wife of Late Gouri Prasad Deka,
C/o. Smti-Bhabani Deka Vill-Dhopatari,
P.O. & P.S. Changsari, Dist-Kamrup(M),
Assam, Pin-781101.
OA. 040/00146/2021
Digitally signed by
BUBUL BARMAN
2
By Advocate: Ms U Das for official Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28.03.2025 Date of order: 25.04.2025
ORDER
PER M L SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A):
The instant application has been filed by the applicant praying for following relief(s):-
8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure-A1) Respondent No.3 with further direction to the respondent authority to divide and five pensionary and other service benefits of the deceased employee to the applicant and respondent No.4 in equal shares being the widows.
8.2 All cost of the application.
8.3 Any other relief(s) to which the applicant is entitled to as the Hon'ble Tribunal may think deem fit and proper.‖
2. According to the applicant, while her husband Late Gouri Prasad Deka was working as Senior Section Engineer at New Bongaigaon under the OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 3 Respondent No.3, her marriage with Late Deka was solemnized on 14.12.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs, and since then, they were living as husband and wife by consummating their marriage and used to reside in Rly Qtr No. 4/B, B G Colony, New Bongaigaon, Assam. On 06.04.2021, applicant along with her husband went to Hyderabad for his eye treatment, where he succumbed to death on 15.04.2021 due to Covid-19 virus.
3. According to the applicant, being the legally married wife of Late Gouri Prasad Deka, she submitted a representation dated 03.05.2021 to the respondent no.3 for release of financial settlement dues to her due to death of her husband, and to appoint her on compassionate ground. However, her prayer was rejected by impugned order dated 11.06.2021 on the ground that applicant's name was not recorded in the family declaration forms submitted by the deceased employee during her service, and that there was no OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 4 record in his service record regarding second marriage with the applicant. Assailing the above order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal with the relief(s) as quoted above.
4. The respondents have filed their written statement denying and disputing the claim of the applicant. According to the respondents, the deceased employee in his various family declaration forms submitted, the name of Smt. Makani Das alias Deka as wife and two unmarried daughters as his dependent family members, and accordingly, after his death, all financial settlement dues were paid to Smt. Makani Das and her two daughters based on service record available with the office. As neither the name of the applicant nor any record regarding 2nd marriage of the deceased employee was available anywhere in the official records of the respondents, the representation of the applicant dated 03.05.2021 was rejected by the order dated 11.06.2021.
OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 5
5. Sri G Kakati, learned counsel for the applicant, in his argument, submitted that applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased railway employee, and she had been living in the official quarter since her marriage and even after the death of the deceased railway employee. In support of his contention, learned counsel brought to the notice of this court the LIC Policy (Annexure-A8/Page 36 of the OA) wherein the deceased employee had nominated the applicant as wife. Learned counsel, having drawn the attention of this court to the Annexure-3 of the OA, submitted that the Village Headman in his certificate dated 05.05.2021 certified that applicant is married to Late Gouri Prasad Deka. According to the learned counsel, Rule 75[7][i][a] of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 stipulates that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, it shall be paid to widows in equal shares, therefore, railways have made provision to pay family pension to second OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 6 wife in certain contingency. Learned counsel also submitted that when she started to live together with Late Gouri Prasad Deka in the official railway quarter after her marriage, applicant came to know about his first marriage but her first wife deserted him in 2013 and the deceased employee did not utter anything about his pending divorce proceeding with the first wife. According to the learned counsel, the respondents had rejected her representation in a most mechanical manner and without providing any personal hearing thereby violating principles of natural justice. In support of that contention that family pension is payable to the second wife too, learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench in WP No.6973 of 2016 (Union of India vs Smt. Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai) decided on 15.04.2020.
6. On the other hand, Ms U Das, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents vehemently submitted that the deceased railway OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 7 servant had consistently declared Smt. Makani Das alias Deka as his wife and two daughters as dependents in his multiple family declarations and nowhere the name of the applicant was mentioned in the service record of the deceased railway employee. Relying on Rule 21 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, learned counsel submitted that applicant's alleged marriage with deceased railway employee on 14.12.2018, if occurred, is void ab initio under Hindu Marriage Act and violative of Rule 21 of the above Rules, and nomination of the applicant as wife in the LIC policy does not confer the status of a wife under the law.
7. In support of her contention that family pension is not entitled to not legally married second wife, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:-
(i) Vidhyadhari vs Sukhrana Bal, (2008) 2 SCC 238;
OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 8
(ii) Savitri Devi v Manoram Bai (1998) 2 SCC 316;
(iii) Rameshwari Devi vs State of Rajasthan (1993) 3 SCC 149;
(iv) Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520;
(v) Union of India v Smt. Rina Devi [WP(C) 456/2015 decided by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 12.08.2016;
(vi) Smt Kamla Rani vs Union of India, [WP(C) 3452/2002.
In rebuttal to the contention of the applicant's side that impugned order was passed without giving personal hearing thereby violating the principles of natural justice, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398.
8. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials placed on records as well as the decisions relied upon by both the sides.
OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 9
9. Notice to private Respondent No.4 (Sri Makani Deka) was returned unserved with the remark ―insufficient address‖. Accordingly, vide order dated 02.08.2023, this Tribunal directed the applicant to again serve the notice upon the private Respondent No.4. However, the applicant did not comply with the above direction and private respondent no.4 remained unserved.
10. Admittedly, in support of her statement/argument that she is the legally married wife of the deceased employee, the applicant could not produce any valid corroborating document. It is the positive stand of the respondents that the deceased employee during his service period has mentioned the name of Smt Makani Das alias Deka as his wife and two daughters as dependents in his multiple family declarations, and name of the applicant was nowhere mentioned by the deceased employee. Therefore, vide an earlier order dated OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 10 31.01.2025, as prayed, learned counsel for the applicant was given an opportunity to produce any evidence that she is the legally married wife. Except for submitting the LIC policy of the deceased employee nominating her name as wife and the certificate dated 05.05.2021 of the village Headman (those are not admissible valid and legal documents), the applicant could not submit any valid corroborating document. The applicant submitted in her representation dated 03.05.2021 that after her marriage with Late Gouri Prasad Deka, she came to know her husband was previously married.
11. In this connection, Rule 21 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is extracted below:-
―21.Restrictions Regarding Marriage.--(1) No railway servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having spouse living: and, OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 11 (2) No railway servant, having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person.
(3) A railway servant who has married or married a person other than of Indian Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.
Provided that the government may permit a railway servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that--
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such railway servant and other party to the marriage ; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing.‖ In this case, second marriage is possible under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, only after the person concerned obtained a divorce against his first wife from a Court of Law. Admittedly, divorce proceeding of the deceased employee with Smt. Makani Das was pending when applicant marriage, as claimed was solemnized on 14.12.2018. It is not the case that decree of divorce from the competent court of law was obtained before applicant's marriage with the deceased employee. Therefore, the marriage, as OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 12 claimed to be solemnized on 14.12.2018 is not valid under the law.
12. In the case of Sukhrana Bai (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a claimant seeking family pension as a second wife must submit the validity of her marriage through clear evidence of solemnization under applicable personal law. In Savitri Devi (supra), the Apex Court held that a second marriage during the subsistence of prior valid marriage is null and void, disentitled the second wife to any legal benefits arising from such a union. In the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that a second wife is entitled to pension only if the second marriage was contracted after legal dissolution of the first marriage or with explicit government approval. In the case of Tulsa (supra), the Apex Court held that proof of a valid marriage under personal law is essential for claiming benefits as a spouse. Similar view is expressed in the remaining case law cited by the OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 13 learned counsel for the respondents. In the present case, the applicant failed to corroborate any valid proof of her valid marriage with the deceased railway employee. The applicant contended that impugned rejection order was issued without affording her any personal hearing thereby violating principles of natural justice. In the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra), the Apex Court held that natural justice does not mandate a personal hearing when the decision rests on undisputed records. In this case, the fact that name of respondent no.4 and two daughters were mentioned as dependent family members in the family declaration forms submitted by the deceased employee and that the applicant was not mentioned therein was not disputed by the applicant in the pleadings. Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant was rejected based on undisputed facts Therefore, above contention of the applicant is not tenable. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Nagpur OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN 14 Bench in WP No.6973/2016, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, is not applicable in this case as in the cited case, second marriage was permissible under the relevant personal law, therefore, the second marriage was held valid.
13. For all the forgoing reasons, and the decisions relied upon, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out any case warranting any interference of this Tribunal, and therefore, the OA is liable to dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M L SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (A) /bb/ OA. 040/00146/2021 Digitally signed by BUBUL BARMAN