Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Union of India through the General Manager and Divisional Railway Manager of South East Central Railway (SECR), challenged the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, in Original Application No.2090/2015. The CAT had directed the petitioners to release family pension to the respondent, Smt. Ganeshibai alias Sunderibai, who claimed to be the second wife of the deceased railway employee Ghasiram. Ghasiram worked as a Gangman with SECR and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2001. He had a first wife, Sunderbai, who died on 25.08.2002, and Ghasiram himself died on 12.03.2003. The respondent claimed to be the second wife of Ghasiram and sought family pension, which was rejected by the petitioners vide communication dated 11.03.2006 on the ground that the marriage was invalid as the first wife was alive at the time of the second marriage. The respondent approached the CAT, which allowed her application. The High Court considered the validity of the marriage under the custom of the Gond community, to which the parties belonged. The Court noted that the respondent had been living with Ghasiram for a long period and that the first wife had died before Ghasiram. The Court held that the marriage was valid as per the custom of the community, which permits a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The Court also observed that the petitioners had not produced any evidence to disprove the respondent's claim. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's order directing the release of family pension to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Family Pension - Second Wife - Validity of Marriage - Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Rule 75 - The respondent claimed family pension as the second wife of a deceased railway employee. The petitioners rejected the claim on the ground that the first wife was alive at the time of the second marriage, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal directed release of pension. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the marriage was valid as per the custom of the Gond community, which permits a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The Court also noted that the first wife had died before the employee, and the respondent had been living with him for a long period. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Family Pension - Proof of First Wife's Death - Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Rule 75 - The petitioners argued that the respondent failed to prove the death of the first wife. However, the Court found that the first wife had died on 25.08.2002, prior to the employee's death on 12.03.2003, and the respondent had been recognized as the widow by the community. The Court held that in the absence of contrary evidence, the respondent was entitled to family pension. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, claiming to be the second wife of the deceased employee, is entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, despite the petitioners' contention that her marriage was invalid due to the subsistence of the first marriage.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18.07.2016, directing the petitioners to release family pension to the respondent.
Law Points
- Family pension
- second wife
- validity of marriage
- custom
- proof of first wife's death
- Railway Services (Pension) Rules
- 1993
- Rule 75
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1972
- Rule 54
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (04) 22
WRIT PETITION NO. 6973 OF 2016
A. S. Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
Shri N.P. Lambat for Petitioners, Shri R.D. Dhande for Respondent
Union of India, through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
Smt. Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai w/o Late Shri Ghasiram s/o Arjun Gond
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal directing release of family pension to the respondent claiming to be second wife of deceased railway employee.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of CAT order dated 18.07.2016 which directed release of family pension to respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the legality and correctness of CAT order on the ground that respondent's marriage was invalid as first wife was alive at the time of second marriage.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, by order dated 18.07.2016 in Original Application No.2090/2015, directed release of family pension to respondent.
Issues
Whether the respondent, claiming to be the second wife of the deceased employee, is entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, despite the petitioners' contention that her marriage was invalid due to the subsistence of the first marriage.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the respondent's marriage to Ghasiram was invalid as the first wife was alive at the time of the second marriage, and therefore she is not entitled to family pension.
Respondent contended that the marriage was valid as per the custom of the Gond community, which permits a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, and that she had been living with Ghasiram for a long period.
Ratio Decidendi
The marriage of the respondent with the deceased employee was valid as per the custom of the Gond community, which permits a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The first wife had died before the employee, and the respondent had been living with him for a long period. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
Judgment Excerpts
Challenge in this petition is by petitioners Union of India through it General Manager, South East Central Railway (SECR) to the legality and correctness of the order dated 18.07.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur [CAT] in Original Application No.2090/2015, by which the CAT has directed to release family pension to the then applicant/respondent herein.
The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that one Ghasiram was working as a Gangman with SECR. He retired on superannuation on 30.06.2001. He had a wife namely Sunderbai, who died on 25.08.2002, whilst Ghasiram died on 12.03.2003.
One Ganeshibai / respondent claimed to be second wife of Ghasiram and accordingly she had claimed family pension from petitioners by issuing various communications and particularly legal notice dated 21.03.2008.
Pension claim of Ganeshibai came to be rejected by petitioners SECR vide communication dated 11.03.2006.
The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the petitioners to release family pension to the respondent.
We have considered the submissions and perused the record.
The marriage of the respondent with Ghasiram is not in dispute. The only dispute is about its validity.
The respondent has placed on record the certificate of marriage issued by the Gond Samaj, which shows that the marriage was performed as per the custom of the community.
In the absence of any contrary evidence, we are inclined to accept the respondent's claim that she is the legally wedded wife of Ghasiram.
Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Original Application No.2090/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, seeking family pension. The CAT allowed the application on 18.07.2016. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.6973 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 15.04.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993: Rule 75
