A second wife of a Hindu employee is ineligible for family pension, but children from void marriages are entitled to proportionate shares.

Late Amal Saikia, a Railway employee, married Malati Saikia (Respondent No. 5) in 1987.

In 2010, while the first marriage was subsisting and without a divorce, he married Bharati Saikia (Petitioner No. 1), with whom he had a son, Mousum Saikia (Petitioner No. 2).

Upon the employee’s death, Petitioner No. 1 sought a share of the family pension, death gratuity, and retiral benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) denied the claim, holding that the first wife was exclusively entitled to the benefits.

The petitioners challenged this order via writ petition before the Gauhati High Court.

1. Whether a second wife, whose marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to a share of the family pension and retiral benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993?

2. Whether the child born out of a void second marriage is entitled to a proportionate share of the family pension?

The Court applied Rules 70 and 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provide for death gratuity and family pension distribution among "widows".

Rule 21 of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, which prohibits a Railway servant from contracting a second marriage without permission and without satisfying that such marriage is permissible under personal law.

Sections 5, 11, and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding void marriages.

The precedent of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Kamalbai v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2019), which established that a second wife must be "legally wedded" to claim pensionary benefits.

The Court reasoned that the terms "wives" or "widows" used in the Pension Rules, 1993, must be interpreted harmoniously with personal laws and Conduct Rules.

Since the deceased was Hindu, the Hindu Marriage Act applies proprio vigore; therefore, any marriage solemnized during the subsistence of a prior marriage is void ab initio under Section 11.

Consequently, Petitioner No. 1 cannot be considered a "legally wedded wife" and is ineligible for pensionary benefits.

Under the Pension Rules, 1993, the legitimacy of the child's claim to a proportionate share of the family pension is protected regardless of the void status of the mother's marriage.

It held that Petitioner No. 2 (the minor son) is entitled to a proportionate share of the family pension according to the Pension Rules of 1993.

The High Court modified the Tribunal’s order to the extent that the Railway authorities must pay the proportionate share of the family pension to the minor son, and the writ petition was partially allowed.