Entitlement to family pension and succession benefits granted to the second wife, affirming her legal status as a widow under applicable pension rules, despite the opposition from children of the first wife.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. This appeal was filed with CMA (SR) No.43696 of 2010 alongwith IA No.1 of 2010 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. After IA No.1 of 2010 was allowed condoning the delay, thePresent appeal was numbered as CMA No.715 of 2024.

2. Heard Sri Mallampalli Srinivas, learned Central Government Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Raja Bhogendra Nath, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No representation for respondent Nos.4 & 5.

3. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925. The challenge is to the grant of Succession Certificate, vide order, dated 02.12.2009 in SAOP No.8 of 2008 on the file of the learnedPrincipal District Judge, Ongole, in favour of thePresent respondents, to an extent as in the said order,Partly allowing the saidPetition.

4. The SAOP No.8 of 2008 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, impleading the respondent Nos.4 & 5 and the appellants 1 & 2 herein (respondents 3 & 4 in SAOP). The succession certificate wasPrayed under Section 372 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , in respect of a sum of Rs.5,74,048/- (P.F. Assets amount of Rs.3,09,385/-, C.G.I.S., amount of Rs.37,276/- D.C.R.G., amount of Rs.2,27,535/- and leave salary of Rs.302/-.)

5. The Parties shall be referred as in the Present appeal.

6. The respondent No.1 is the 2nd wife, the 2nd respondent is the daughter and the 3rd respondent is the son of late K.J. Prabhakara Rao, (an employee in South Central Railway, Gudivada), from the 2nd wife. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 are the children of K.J.Prabhakara Rao from his 1st wife.

7. The respondent Nos.4 & 5, (respondents 1 & 2 in SAOP), filed counter and inter alia denied the claim of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. They claimed that they were alone entitled to receive all the benefits.

8. All the respondents 1 to 5 referred to the OS No.8 of 1997 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, between them and the award of the Lok Adalat, dated 30.06.2001 therein, which was filed as Ex.A1. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 also filed OS No.22 of 1999 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, adding respondent Nos.4 & 5, which was also settled and ended in dismissal on 04.08.2001. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed EP No.78 of 2005 against the appellants and the appellantsPleaded that they were notParties in suits and the respondents shall obtain Succession Certificate.

9. The appellants filed their counter denying the claim, and inter alia submitting that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not submit anyProof in support of their claim for death benefits of the deceased employee. In respect to the Lok Adalat award, they submitted that they were notParty, so the said award was not binding on them. They also stated that asPer Rule 75(6)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (in short as 'Pension Rules 1993') a daughter, who is either beyond 25 years of age or married is not entitled to the familyPension. TheyPraye