A second wife in a subsisting first marriage is ineligible for family pension.

The applicant, Smt. Geeta Devi, claimed to have married Late Shri Janmejay Verma, a Loco Pilot in the Northern Railway, on 25 August 2007 and had two children with him.

The deceased employee had, however, previously married Respondent No. 4, Smt. Shakuntala Devi, in 1988, and that marriage was subsisting.

The applicant alleged that the deceased had acknowledged her and her children in official records and that, following his death in a railway accident on 20 April 2021, she sought compassionate appointment and service-related benefits through representations dated 30 May 2021 and 17 June 2021.

The Railway authorities stated that her claim was under examination. Respondent No. 4 asserted that she was the legally wedded wife and that the applicant’s subsequent marriage was void under Hindu law.

Whether the applicant, whose marriage with the deceased employee was solemnized during the subsistence of his first marriage, could be treated as his legally wedded wife and claim family pension or other service benefits?

Whether family pension could be divided between the first wife and the applicant as “widows” under Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993?

Whether the applicant or the children born from the deceased employee’s second relationship could be considered for compassionate appointment without insisting upon a succession certificate?

The Tribunal held that the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 did not apply to Railway employees, and therefore examined the matter under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and other applicable Railway rules.

Under Hindu law, a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is void and does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife; the Tribunal relied on Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, (2000) 2 SCC 431, and Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others.

Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 was interpreted to mean that “widows” entitled to family pension are legally wedded wives, and not spouses of void marriages.

At the same time, children born from the second relationship are legitimate and cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment merely because their parents’ marriage was void, subject to applicable eligibility conditions; the Tribunal relied on Prakash Saxena v. Union of India and Union of India v. Amit Kashyap, as well as Smt. Namita Golder v. Union of India.

A succession certificate was not required for consideration of compassionate appointment, and benefits constituting the deceased employee’s estate could be released to eligible heirs.

The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 4’s marriage to the deceased employee was the first and remained subsisting when the applicant’s marriage was allegedly solemnized. Consequently, the applicant could not claim the legal status of a wife or an entitlement to family pension under Rule 75.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that the expression “widows” permitted equal distribution of family pension between the two women, distinguishing cases involving legally valid plural marriages under applicable personal law.

However, the invalidity of the marriage did not by itself disqualify the children born from the relationship from consideration for compassionate appointment.

Since the existence of the children was not disputed, the Railway authorities were required to conduct an appropriate enquiry and decide the compassionate appointment claim under the applicable rules, without insisting on a succession certificate.

Family pension was directed to be released to Respondent No. 4, the first legally wedded wife.

Other retiral dues forming part of the deceased employee’s estate were directed to be released to the eligible heirs in accordance with law.

The Railway authorities were further directed to consider and decide the claim for compassionate appointment, including the claims of the children born from the second relationship, after conducting a proper enquiry and without requiring a succession certificate.

The Original Application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.