Railway Worker’s Second Wife Wins Family Pension After First Wife Dies Without Children By Him

Late Rajendra Kumar, a railway employee, died in harness on 23 August 2010.

The applicant claimed to be his second wife; his first wife, Smt. Seema, was alive when he died and passed away on 2 March 2014.

The applicant and the deceased had six children.

Following a succession certificate, certain retiral benefits were paid to the children, but the applicant’s claims for family pension and compassionate appointment for her son, Krishna Kumar, were rejected by order dated 21 January 2020.

The applicant’s earlier application had resulted in a direction to decide her representation by a reasoned order; she then brought this application challenging the rejection.

The applicant sought family pension, arrears with interest, and compassionate appointment for her son.

Rule 75(7) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 governs the distribution of family pension among eligible widows and children, including the circumstances in which a share does not lapse when a beneficiary dies or ceases to be eligible.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Jaywantabai, W.P. No. 4467 of 2014 (Bombay High Court, 20 November 2014), and Sato Devi v. East Central Railway, O.A. No. 050/00782/2022 (CAT Patna Bench, 23 July 2024), concerning a second widow’s claim to family pension in the circumstances considered in those cases.

It also referred to Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, (2000) 2 SCC 431, distinguishing a second wife’s position from the rights of children born of the second marriage.

For compassionate appointment, Railway Board Circular RBE No. 218/2019 permits consideration of children born to a second wife, subject to its conditions, including the priority of a claim by the first wife or her child; RBE No. 120/2023 made those instructions effective from 11 December 2018, and RBE No. 08/2026 clarified that qualifying applications received after that date must be considered on their individual merits.

The Tribunal found that the first wife had died after the employee, had no children by him, and had not been shown to have objected to the applicant’s relationship; the record also indicated that the deceased had obtained railway privilege passes for the applicant’s children.

It held that payment of certain retiral benefits under a succession certificate did not determine entitlement to family pension and that the respondents had not shown that pension had been paid to the first wife or another claimant.

In light of Rule 75(7) and the cited decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the rejection had not adequately addressed the relevant circumstances.

As the applicant’s representation for her son’s appointment was made after 11 December 2018, the claim had to be considered under the applicable Railway Board instructions, with the son’s eligibility and the circumstances concerning the first wife assessed by the competent authority.

It directed the respondents to pay family pension to the applicant, with arrears from the date it became due and interest at 8% per annum, and to ensure payment of any other admissible retiral benefits, including DCRG, if unpaid.

It further directed the competent authority to reconsider the son’s compassionate-appointment claim under the applicable Railway Board circulars and issue a reasoned order.

Compliance was required within three months of receipt of a certified copy; no costs were awarded.