Second wife of a void marriage under Hindu Law is ineligible for family pension.

The applicant is the first legally wedded wife of late Lalan Jee Pathak, a former Regional Director in the Central Board of Worker Education, who died on December 14, 2019

Prior to his death, the applicant had filed for maintenance and sought recording of her name in his service records

After his demise, the Respondent department, vide order dated October 19, 2022, sanctioned 50% of the family pension to the applicant and 50% to Respondent No. 5, who claimed to be the second wife married to the deceased in 1971

The Respondents justified this split citing Rule 50(6)(g) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

The applicant challenged this order, seeking 100% family pension on the grounds that the second marriage was void under Hindu Law

1. Whether the family pension of an employee who died in 2019 is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

2. Whether a second wife, whose marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of a valid first marriage under Hindu Law, is entitled to a share of the family pension

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the full 100% family pension in the absence of eligible children from the second marriage

The Tribunal applied Rule 87(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which stipulates that cases where the employee died before the commencement of the 2021 Rules (December 20, 2021) are governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

It further relied on Sections 5(1), 11, and 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which render a second marriage during the lifetime of a spouse void

The Tribunal also considered Rule 54(7)(a)(i) of the 1972 Rules regarding multiple widows and various precedents, including Dular i Devi v. State of Bihar, which established that a second wife of a Hindu employee is not entitled to family pension if the first marriage was subsisting

The Tribunal observed that since the employee died in 2019, the Respondents erred in applying the 2021 Rules; the case must be adjudicated under the 1972 Rules

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage of Respondent No. 5 with the deceased was void as the applicant (the first wife) was alive and not divorced at the time

Consequently, Respondent No. 5 cannot be recognized as a "widow" for the purposes of family pension

While children from a void marriage are entitled to a share of the pension under Rule 54 of the 1972 Rules and relevant OMs, the record showed no evidence of eligible children from the second marriage

The Tribunal noted that the Respondents failed to prove any legal divorce between the applicant and the deceased, and thus, the applicant remained the sole legally wedded wife entitled to the pensionary benefits

It directed the competent authority to ensure the payment of family pension to the applicant and any eligible children of the deceased strictly in accordance with Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

The Respondents were granted liberty to conduct a necessary inquiry regarding the eligibility of any children of the deceased

The impugned order was set aside to the extent of the 50% grant to the second wife, and the authorities were ordered to pass fresh orders within six months

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs