Second marriage during subsistence of first is void; only first wife entitled to family pension.

Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak, a Railway employee, died in harness on December 7, 2011.

Two women, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Shimla Devi, both claimed to be his legally wedded wives and sought compassionate appointment and other terminal benefits.

Smt. Shimla Devi, the first wife, had married the deceased in 1978 and had an unmarried daughter and a married son.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi claimed her marriage to the deceased on May 2, 2005, after Smt. Shimla Devi allegedly deserted him.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi's name and her children's names were recorded in official Railway records during the deceased's lifetime.

The Railway Administration, facing rival claims, directed both women to obtain a succession certificate as a precondition for considering their claims, citing the need to avoid wrongful disbursement.

This directive led to these original applications challenging the insistence on a succession certificate and seeking the release of benefits.

1. Whether Smt. Shakuntala Devi is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak, entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

2. Whether the insistence by the Railway Administration on a succession certificate for disbursal of family pension and other retiral benefits to the claimants is legally sound.

3. Whether children born from the second marriage are eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which addresses family pension payments to multiple widows, interpreting "widows" to mean legally wedded wives.

It relied on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly the prohibition against bigamy, stating that a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage is void ab initio.

Precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others* (2000) 2 SCC 431, and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in *Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others* (Writ ‘A’ No. 3288 of 2017), were crucial in establishing that a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is void under Hindu law.

For compassionate appointment, the Tribunal considered the Railway Board Circular dated January 2, 1992, and the legal position established by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in *Smt. Namita Golder & Another v. Union of India & Others* (2010), holding that children of a second marriage are legitimate and thus eligible for consideration.

The Tribunal analyzed the marital status of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, finding no evidence that the first marriage between the deceased and Smt. Shimla Devi was ever legally dissolved through a competent court.

The argument of customary divorce based on desertion within the 'Shudra' community, relying on *M. Govindaraju v. K. Munisami Gounder* (AIR 1997 SC 10), was rejected as the custom in Karnataka could not be applied to the 'Shudra' community in Uttar Pradesh without specific evidence of its prevalence, which was not adduced.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Smt. Shakuntala Devi's marriage was void *ab initio* under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, following the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Rameshwari Devi*.

This meant that Smt. Shakuntala Devi was not a "legally wedded wife" and, consequently, not a "widow" under Rule 75(7) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The court distinguished *Smt. M. Samadhanam* as it involved a compromise and declaratory suit.

The insistence on a succession certificate for pension disbursement was deemed an abdication of the competent authority's duty, as the legal entitlement of the first wife was clear under service rules.

For compassionate appointment, while the second marriage was void, the children born from it were considered legitimate, and consistent with judicial precedents, their claim for compassionate appointment could not be denied solely on the ground of the second marriage's invalidity, provided they met other eligibility criteria.

Consequently, family pension is only admissible to Smt. Shimla Devi, the legally wedded first wife, and cannot be shared with Smt. Shakuntala Devi.

The impugned orders from the Railway Administration directing the claimants to obtain a succession certificate were quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to release the family pension in favor of Smt. Shimla Devi within three months.

Regarding compassionate appointment, the Tribunal held that children born from the second marriage are legitimate and eligible for consideration, and the respondents were directed to decide on compassionate appointment applications from both families based on applicable rules and a proper enquiry, without insisting on a succession certificate, within three months.