Second marriage void, only first wife entitled to family pension under Railway Rules.

Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak, a Peon in the Electrical Department of North Central Railway, Allahabad, died in harness on December 7, 2011.

Two women claimed to be his legally wedded wife, both seeking compassionate appointment and other terminal benefits.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi (applicant in O.A. Nos. 1485/2013 and 194/2013) claimed her marriage to the deceased was solemnized on May 2, 2005, after his first wife, Smt. Shimla Devi, had allegedly deserted him.

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

She asserted a customary divorce for the 'Shudra/Hela' community based on long and continuous desertion.

Smt. Shimla Devi (applicant in O.A. No. 1737/2012) claimed to be the legally wedded first wife, asserting that no decree of divorce was ever passed.

Both claimants challenged the Railway Administration's insistence on a succession certificate as a precondition for considering their claims.

The Railway Administration, facing rival claims, sought legal advice and then issued a letter dated March 30, 2012, requiring a succession certificate from both claimants to avoid wrongful disbursement of benefits.

Smt. Shakuntala Devi's representation, made pursuant to a Tribunal directive, was rejected by an order dated November 5, 2012, citing applicable rules and legal advice.

1. Whether the second marriage of Late Shri Pramod Kumar Bedharak with Smt. Shakuntala Devi was a valid marriage, given the subsistence of his first marriage with Smt. Shimla Devi.

2. Whether the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, specifically Rule 75 (7) (i) (a), allows for the equal sharing of family pension between the first legally wedded wife and a second wife whose marriage is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Whether the Railway Administration was justified in insisting on a succession certificate from the claimants before considering their applications for compassionate appointment and other service benefits.

4. Whether children born from a second marriage, even if the marriage is void, are eligible for compassionate appointment.

The court applied Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which states that where family pension is payable to more widows than one, it shall be paid to widows in equal shares.

It also applied principles from the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, specifically regarding the validity of a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage, noting such a marriage is void ab initio.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others (2000) 2 SCC 431, which held that a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage under Hindu law cannot be validated.

It also referenced Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others (Writ 'A' No. 3288 of 2017), which reiterated that a Hindu cannot contact a second marriage with a living spouse, and such a marriage would be a nullity.

The court considered the Railway Board Circular No. E(NG)II/91/RC-1/136 dated January 2, 1992, regarding compassionate appointment for children of a second wife.

Precedents like Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P and others (Writ A No. 60881 of 2015) and Smt. Madhuri Mishra v. State of U.P and others (Writ ‘A’ No. 1811 of 2023) were cited regarding the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointment.

The court also referred to its own decision in Prakash Saxena v. Union of India and others (OA No. 924 of 2012), which discussed the eligibility of children from a second marriage for compassionate appointment.

The court first determined the validity of the second marriage.

It found no evidence that the first marriage between Smt. Shimla Devi and the deceased was ever dissolved by a competent court.

The argument of customary divorce for the 'Shudra' community based on desertion, as relied upon by Smt. Shakuntala Devi, was not accepted.

The court differentiated M. Govindaraju v. K. Munisami Gounder (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 10), stating that custom prevalent in Karnataka's 'Gounder' community could not be applied to the 'Shudra' community in Uttar Pradesh without specific evidence of such a custom.

Given the subsistence of the first marriage, the court, relying on Rameshwari Devi (supra) and Chandra Kali (supra), concluded that the second marriage with Smt. Shakuntala Devi was void ab initio under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Therefore, Smt. Shakuntala Devi could not be considered a legally wedded wife.

Regarding family pension, the court interpreted "widows" in Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, to mean only legally wedded wives, not those from illegal or void marriages.

It distinguished the Smt. Pushpa v. Smt. Y. Jansi Rani and others (W.P. No. 15979 of 2022) case of the Karnataka High Court, asserting that the Supreme Court's pronouncement on void marriages takes precedence.

For compassionate appointment, the court recognized that the disqualification for children of a second wife, as per the Railway Board Circular of January 2, 1992, has been declared ultra vires by the Calcutta High Court in Smt. Namita Golder & Another v. Union of India & Others (W.P.C.T. No. 20 of 2010), and children born from a second marriage are legitimate for consideration, provided eligibility criteria are met.

The court found the Railway Administration's insistence on a succession certificate to be an abdication of its duty to resolve claims under service rules and perform due inquiry.

Consequently, Smt. Shakuntala Devi is not the legally wedded wife, and family pension is admissible only to Smt. Shimla Devi, the legally wedded first wife.

The impugned orders dated March 30, 2012, May 23, 2013 (O.A. No. 1485/2013), November 5, 2012, November 7, 2012, and March 30, 2012 (O.A. No. 194/2013), and March 30, 2012 (O.A. No. 1737/2012), which insisted on 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 from the receipt of the order.

For compassionate appointment, the respondents were directed to decide the claims, including children from the second marriage, after proper inquiry and in accordance with applicable rules, without insisting on a succession certificate, within three months.