A second wife married during the first marriage’s subsistence is ineligible for family pension.

Late Chhote Lal was appointed as a Skilled Tailor in the Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, on 3 August 1963. He had married Smt. Urmila Devi in 1962. The applicant, Smt. Kusuma Devi, claimed that Urmila Devi had left the matrimonial home and that Chhote Lal’s first marriage had subsequently been dissolved according to community custom, after which he married the applicant on 4 June 1974. She claimed entitlement to family pension as his legally wedded wife

Chhote Lal retired on 31 July 2003. In the family pension nomination dated 1 February 2003, Kusuma Devi was described as his second wife, but her name was not included as an eligible spouse in the PPO; family pension was recorded as “not sanctioned, being a disputed case”.

After Chhote Lal’s death on 3 April 2016, the applicant claimed family pension. The authorities conducted an enquiry and concluded that her marriage had taken place during the subsistence of Chhote Lal’s first marriage. Her claim was rejected by order dated 30 November 2022, followed by disposal of her representation on 12 April 2023.

The applicant relied upon a subsequent ex parte divorce decree dated 8 September 2004 and other documents, including a ration card, to establish her status as Chhote Lal’s wife. The respondents maintained that the divorce decree was subsequent to the applicant’s marriage and that a second wife whose marriage was solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage was not entitled to family pension.

Whether the applicant, who married the deceased employee during the subsistence of his first marriage, could be recognised as his legally wedded wife for the purpose of family pension?

Whether the rejection of the applicant’s family pension claim by order dated 30 November 2022 was liable to be set aside?

The Tribunal applied Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibits a Government servant from contracting a marriage during the subsistence of an existing marriage, subject to the prescribed governmental exemption.

It also relied upon the principles under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, treating a subsequent marriage contracted while the first marriage subsisted as invalid for recognition as a lawful spousal relationship.

The Tribunal further referred to the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare Office Memorandum dated 27 October 2025 and the applicable CCS Pension Rules, reiterating that a second wife whose marriage was solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage is not entitled to family pension.

The Tribunal found that Chhote Lal’s first marriage was subsisting when he married the applicant in 1974. The alleged customary divorce was not accepted as established, particularly because the applicant gave inconsistent accounts—initially stating that the first wife had died and later relying on divorce—and because the only divorce decree produced was an ex parte decree dated 8 September 2004, approximately thirty years after the applicant’s marriage and after Chhote Lal’s retirement.

Since the applicant’s marriage occurred while the first marriage was legally subsisting, it violated Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and could not confer the status of a legally wedded wife for family pension purposes.

The applicant’s inclusion in the nomination form or production of other supporting documents did not override the legal bar arising from the invalid second marriage.

The challenge to the order dated 30 November 2022 was rejected, the Original Application was dismissed, and any pending Miscellaneous Applications were also dismissed. No order was made as to costs.