Smt Anita vs Banaras Locomotive Works

1

(Reserved on 23.09.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

th
This the _27 day of _October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)



Original Application No. 1060 of 2025

Smt. Anita W/o Late Rajendra Kumar R/o H. No. 85/65, Shakkar Mill,
Khalwa, District Kanpur Nagar Presently resides at Plot No. 83,
Ganga Nagar, Shyam Nagar, C.O.D. Kanpur Nagar, District Kanpur
Nagar..
……….. Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. Subodh Kumar Rai/Mr. Shashi Kant Sharma.


Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E.R., Gorakhpur.

2. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), N.E.R. Lucknow.

3. Divisional Railway Manager, (N.E.R.) Lucknow Division,
Lucknow.
……….. Respondents.


By Advocates: Mr. Pramod Kumar Rai.

Order
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 and seeking family
pension, compassionate appointment for her son and other
consequential reliefs. The reliefs sought by the applicant are
as follows:-
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the natuure of certiorari
by quashing/set aside the impugned order dated
21.01.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 2/Divisional
Railway Manager (Personnel), N.E.R. Lucknow.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing to the respondents to pay the
Shakuntala Singh

2

monthly family pension to the applicant and further to pay
the arrears of pension along with interest @ 8% from the
due date to till the actual payment.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing to the respondent department
to give compassionate appointment to her son.

iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

v) Award cost of the Original application.”
2. The instant Original Application has been filed by the
applicant, Smt. Anita, challenging the order dated 21.01.2020
passed by respondent No. 2, whereby her representation
seeking family pension and compassionate appointment for
her son was rejected. The applicant is the second wife of Late
Rajendra Kumar, a railway employee who died in harness on
23.08.2010. She submits that, following the death of the first
wife, Smt. Seema, on 02.03.2014, she obtained a succession
certificate dated 13.08.2016 in respect of the deceased
employee’s retiral benefits. The applicant submitted
representations dated 01.09.2018 and 05.07.2019 seeking
family pension and compassionate appointment for her son,
Krishna Kumar. As no decision was communicated, she filed
O.A. No. 1152 of 2019, which was disposed of on 11.11.2019
with a direction to the competent authority to decide her
representation dated 05.07.2019 by passing a reasoned and
speaking order within four months. Pursuant thereto, the
respondents rejected her claim vide order dated 21.01.2020.
The subsequent execution proceedings, being Execution
Application No. 6271 of 2024 arising out of O.A. No. 1152 of
2019, were disposed of on 20.05.2025, with liberty to the
applicant to avail herself of the appropriate legal remedy
against the said order. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has
filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the
Shakuntala Singh

3

impugned order, grant of family pension along with arrears
and interest at the rate of 8% per annum, and compassionate
appointment for her son.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is the second wife of the deceased railway employee
and that she obtained a succession certificate from the
competent civil court in respect of his retiral benefits. It is
contended that the respondents have illegally rejected her
claim for family pension on the ground that she is the second
wife and have denied compassionate appointment to her son,
Krishna Kumar, without properly considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements
relied upon by the applicant. Learned counsel further submits
that the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 is unsustainable in
law and prays that the reliefs sought in the Original
Application be granted.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that the Original Application is not maintainable, as
the applicant has sought two separate reliefs, namely, family
pension and compassionate appointment for her son, which
are not consequential to each other. It is further submitted that
the applicant’s son has not independently approached the
Tribunal seeking compassionate appointment. The
respondents contend that the deceased employee had
married Smt. Seema during his lifetime and that the applicant’s
alleged marriage with him, being a second marriage, is void
under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly,
the applicant is not entitled to family pension as she is not the
legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. It is further
submitted that, although the retiral benefits of the deceased
Shakuntala Singh

4

employee were released to the applicant and her children
pursuant to the succession certificate issued by the competent
civil court, the said certificate does not confer any entitlement
to family pension. The respondents maintain that the
impugned order dated 21.01.2020 was passed by the
competent authority in compliance with the Tribunal’s order
dated 11.11.2019 in O.A. No. 1152 of 2019, after considering
the applicable Railway Board circulars, and that no illegality or
infirmity exists therein.
5. In the counter reply, learned counsel for the respondents
further submitted that the claim for compassionate
appointment of the applicant’s son is governed by the relevant
Railway Board circulars, including RBE No. 42/2018 dated
21.03.2018, RBE No. 218/2019 dated 30.12.2019 and RBE No.
120/2023 dated 02.11.2023. It is contended that, although the
Railway Board subsequently permitted consideration of claims
of children born to a second wife in specified circumstances,
the applicant’s representation dated 05.07.2019 preceded the
issuance of the circular dated 30.12.2019, and the competent
authority, therefore, rightly rejected the claim in the
impugned order. The respondents have also referred to the
subsequent Railway Board circular RBE No. 08/2026 dated
21.01.2026, clarifying that applications of children born to
second wives received after 11.12.2018 are to be considered
and decided on their individual merits and should not be
rejected merely on the ground that the cause of action arose
before that date. Nevertheless, the respondents maintain that
the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and that the
Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
Shakuntala Singh

5

6. In the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the
applicant, while reiterating the averments made in the
Original Application, submitted that the respondents have
arbitrarily rejected the applicant’s claim for family pension
and compassionate appointment for her son vide the
impugned order dated 21.01.2020, without properly
considering the relevant rules, regulations and Railway Board
circulars. It is further submitted that the applicant had
specifically mentioned the name of her son, Krishna Kumar, in
her representation dated 05.07.2019 for compassionate
appointment and that she was granted the retiral benefits of
her deceased husband pursuant to the succession certificate
issued by the competent civil court. Learned counsel contends
that the respondents have failed to disclose the relevant rules
and regulations forming the basis of the rejection of her claim
and have ignored the material facts and applicable legal
position. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be
quashed and the reliefs sought in the Original Application be
granted.
7. Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Rai, assisted by Mr. Shashi
Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr.
Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. The
pleadings, documents and other material available on record
have also been perused.
8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.01.2020
reveals that the respondents recorded the findings of the
departmental inquiry concerning the family circumstances of
Late Rajendra Kumar. The respondents noted that his first wife,
Smt. Seema, had no children from the deceased employee,
whereas the applicant had two daughters and four sons from
Shakuntala Singh

6

her relationship with him. The order further records that the
terminal benefits of the deceased employee had initially
remained unpaid due to a dispute and that certain amounts,
including provident fund, life insurance and leave
encashment, were subsequently paid to the children on the
basis of a succession certificate issued by the competent court.
The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced
below:-
“
.......................रेल कम चार [ ȣ è व. राजे Ûġ ͧ ल ͪ पक
कुमार, अवर
ट ȣ आरडी ऐशबाग क ȧ × Ʌ यह
मृ यु 23-08-2010 को हुई थी। जाँच म
त Ø य è प ç ͩ क कम चार [ ȣ का ͪ ववाह Į
ट हुआ ीमती सीमा के साथ हुआ
था पर Û तु उनसे कोई संतान è व. राजे Ûġ कुमार के नह ȣ ं थी। वा Ǒ दनी
अनीता ने è व. कम चार [ ȣ क ȧ प × नी होने का दावा ͩ कया है जब ͩ क
जाँच म Ʌ यह è प ç ͩ क कम चार [ ȣ è व. राजे Ûġ
ट हुआ है कुमार ने
अपनी प × नी से कोई संतान न होने के कारण, Ĥ थम प × नी Į ीमती
सीमा के जी ͪ ͧ लया था और
वत रहते हुए अनीता को अपने साथ रख
वह उसक ȧ ͪ ववा Ǒ हत वैध प × नी नह ȣ ं थी। अनीता से कम चार [ ȣ को दो
ğ ğ चार [ ȣ अपने काया [ लय से अपनी
पु ी एवं 04 पु हुए और कम
ͪ ववा Ǒ हत प × नी Į ीमती सीमा के साथ-साथ अपनी अवैध प × नी से
उ × प Û न ब Í च ɉ का भी सु ͪ वधा पास लेता रहा।

चार [ ȣ क ȧ प × नी Į ीमती सीमा क ȧ ×
मृतक कम मृ यु 02-03-2014
को हो गयी थी और उपल Þ ध अ ͧ भलेख ɉ चार [ ȣ
के अनुसार मृतक कम
को समापक भुगतान ͪ ववा Ǒ दत होने के कारण ͩ कसी को भी नह ȣ ं
Ǒ दया गया था।

रेलवे बोड [ ɮ वारा जार ȣ Ǒ दशा Ǔ नद ȶ श ɉ Ǔ नयम ɉ
एवं लागू के अनुसार
वैध प × नी क ȧ मृ × यु क ȧ ि è थ Ǔ त म Ʌ अवैध प × नी के ब Í च ɉ को मृतक
कम चार [ ȣ क ȧ चल स à प ͪƣ जो ͩ क रेलवे म Ʌ Ǔ नवा [ ह Ǔ न ͬ ध, डीसीआरजी,
जीवन बीमा एवं अवकाश नकद ȣ करण के Ǿ प म Ʌ जमा थी, को स ¢ म
Û यायालय ɮ वारा जार ȣ उ ƣ रा ͬ धकार Ĥ माण प ğ के आलोक म Ʌ उनके
Ǒ ह è से के Ǿ प म Ʌ ͩ
भुगतान कया जा चुका है।.................”
In Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar , (2000) 2 SCC 431,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished the rights of a
second wife from those of children born out of a second
marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first
marriage. The aforesaid findings recorded in the impugned
Shakuntala Singh

7

order are relevant to the claims raised in the present Original
Application. However, the payment of retiral benefits pursuant
to a succession certificate does not, by itself, determine
entitlement to family pension, which has to be examined under
the applicable Railway pension rules and the relevant legal
principles.
9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and
material available on record. The applicant claims family
pension on the basis of her relationship with Late Rajendra
Kumar. It is not disputed that his first wife, Smt. Seema, was
alive at the time of the employee’s death on 23.08.2010 and
died subsequently on 02.03.2014. The record indicates that the
first wife had no children from the deceased employee, that
the applicant was residing with him and that no objection by
the first wife to the applicant’s relationship has been brought
on record. It is also recorded in the impugned order that the
deceased employee continued to obtain railway privilege
passes for the children born out of his relationship with the
applicant, alongside his legally wedded wife. These
circumstances are relevant to the consideration of the
applicant’s claim. Rule 75(7)(i)(a) and (b) of the Railway
Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides for distribution of
family pension where it is payable to more than one widow
and for the treatment of a widow’s share upon her death where
she is not survived by any eligible child. In Union of India &
Anr. v. Jaywantabai , Writ Petition No. 4467 of 2014, decided on
20.11.2014, reported as 2015 (5) ALL MR 584, the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court considered the entitlement of a second
widow to family pension under Rule 75 of the aforesaid Rules.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special
Shakuntala Singh

8

Leave Petition in SLP (C) No. 11491 of 2015 by order dated
08.05.2015, observed that, following the death of the first wife
and in the absence of surviving children from that marriage,
the second wife would prima facie be entitled to the entire
pensionary benefits, while leaving the question of law open.
Further, in Sato Devi v. East Central Railway , O.A. No.
050/00782/2022, decided on 23.07.2024, the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, applying Rule 75(7)(i) of
the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, held the surviving
second widow entitled to family pension in the circumstances
of that case.
10. For just and proper adjudication, Rule 75, sub-rule (7), of
the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, is quoted
hereinbelow :-
“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 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 a
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 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 shall not lapse but shall be payable to
Shakuntala Singh

9

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.”
11. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that Rule
75(7) deals with the distribution of family pension where more
than one widow is entitled to it, as well as the entitlement of
eligible children born from another wife who is no longer alive
or from a divorced wife. The Rule further provides that, in the
circumstances specified therein, the share of family pension
shall not lapse upon ceasing to be payable to one beneficiary
but shall pass to the other eligible widow or child. In the
present case, it is not disputed that the first wife, Smt. Seema,
died on 02.03.2014, after the death of the employee, and that
no child was born to her from the deceased employee. The
impugned order also records that the deceased employee
obtained railway privilege passes for the children born out of
his relationship with the applicant, alongside his legally
wedded wife. The record does not show that the first wife
raised any objection to the applicant’s relationship during her
lifetime or that family pension had been paid to her or to any
other claimant.
12. The respondents have opposed the applicant’s claim for
family pension primarily on the ground that she was not the
legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. They have
also stated that the retiral benefits were released pursuant to
the succession certificate issued by the Civil Court, which did
not contain any direction for payment of family pension.
However, the succession certificate and the payment of retiral
benefits thereunder do not, by themselves, determine the
applicant’s entitlement to family pension. The record does not
disclose that family pension was sanctioned or paid to the first
wife or to any other claimant. In view of Rule 75(7) of the
Shakuntala Singh

10

Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the judicial decisions
discussed above, including Union of India & Anr. v.
Jaywantabai and Sato Devi v. East Central Railway, and the
specific circumstances borne out from the record, the
respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim without
adequately considering these aspects cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the applicant’s claim for family pension and
other admissible retiral benefits, including DCRG, if not
already paid, is liable to be allowed in accordance with the
applicable rules.
13. So far as the claim for compassionate appointment of the
applicant’s son, Krishna Kumar, is concerned, the applicant
had sought his appointment through her representation dated
05.07.2019. The Railway Board, vide Circular No. RBE
218/2019 dated 30.12.2019, permitted consideration of the
cases of children born to a second wife for compassionate
appointment, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The
relevant extract of the said circular reads as under:-
“The matter has, therefore, been reviewed by Board in
view of above Judicial pronouncements considering also the
views of the Central Agency Section of the Ministry of Law &
Justice. In partial supersession of Board’s Circular No.
E(NG)II/91/RC-1/136 dated 02.01.1992 (RBE No. 1/1992)
referred to, it has now been decided that children born to the
second wife may also be considered for compassionate
appointment even where the second marriage has not been
specifically permitted by the administration. However, since
compassionate appointment after demise of the Railway
employee can be considered for granting to only one dependent
family member on merits, a child born to the second wife can be
considered for such appointment only after ascertaining that
there is no objection from the first wife or her children. Where
the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate
appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such
claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the
second wife for any of her children.”

The applicability of the aforesaid instructions was
subsequently clarified vide Railway Board Circular RBE No.
120/2023 dated 02.11.2023, whereby the instructions
Shakuntala Singh

11

contained in RBE No. 218/2019 were made effective from
11.12.2018. Further, RBE No. 08/2026 dated 21.01.2026
clarifies that applications of children born to second wives,
received after 11.12.2018, are to be considered on their
individual merits and should not be rejected merely on the
ground that the cause of action arose before that date. Since
the applicant’s representation dated 05.07.2019 was submitted
after 11.12.2018, the claim for compassionate appointment
requires reconsideration in the light of the aforesaid
instructions. The competent authority shall examine the claim
on its merits, including the applicant’s son’s age and other
eligibility conditions, and the relevant circumstances
concerning the first wife, in accordance with the applicable
Railway Board instructions.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original
Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.01.2020
is set aside. The respondents/competent authority are
directed (i) to release and pay family pension to the applicant,
along with arrears from the date it became due and interest at
the rate of 8% per annum, and to ensure payment of all other
admissible retiral benefits, including DCRG, if not already
paid, in accordance with the applicable rules and (ii) to
reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment of the
applicant’s son, Krishna Kumar, in accordance with Railway
Board Circular No. RBE 218/2019 dated 30.12.2019 and to pass
a reasoned and speaking order. The aforesaid directions shall
be complied with within three months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Shakuntala Singh

12

15. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (J)


/Shakuntala/

Shakuntala Singh