The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a second wife to family pension under the amended provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the interpretation of Rule 75(7)(i)(a) by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider the case for grant of fami ly pension to the petitioner with effect from 06.06.2016 as per request made vide Annexures-J and K dated 07.07.2017 and 14.08.2017 respectively.

2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petition are as under:

The petitioner is claiming to be the legally wedded wife of one Sri S.Joseph son of D.Sanjeevinathan. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Goods Guard in Gadag and retired from services on 29.08.1996 in Hubballi Division of South Western Railway, under Divisional Railway Manager, Hubballi. The petitioner to evidence the same, has furnished service certificate issued by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent sanctioned pension as per Pension Payment Order (PPO) No.5905202756, dated 12.09.1997 and also claims that pension was revised by the 5th respondent after the implementation of 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 and the same is also placed on record as per Annexure-B2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her husband died on 05.06.2016 and to evidence the same, the petitioner has placed on record the death certificate as per Annexure-C.

4. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that her husband had married first wife by name Arogyamerry @ Tavamani on 01.01.1970 and had led marital life with the said Arogyamerry @ Tavamani up to 1981. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the said Arogyamerry @ Tavamani deserted her husband and started living with another person by name P.Dhanaraj. It is also averred in the writ petition that in the wedlock of the pensioner and Arogyamerry @ Tavamani there are no issues. A specific contention is taken at paragraph No.4 of the writ petition that the said Arogyamerry @ Tavamani having deserted the petitioner's husband started residing with one P.Dhanaraj and she has three chi ldren.

5. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that, since there was litigation pending between the petitioner's husband and his first wife, the authorities did not include the petitioner's name in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) in-spite of repeated representations submitted by the petitioner's husband, which are produced before this Court as per Annexures-F and G. At paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has speci fically contended that the 3rd respondent has issued retirement pass to the pensioner i.e., the husband of the petitioner herein by duly including the petitioner as wi fe on 19.05.2015. The petitioner by relying on the copy of the pass has furnished the same before this Court as per Annexure-H.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, after the death of pensioner, the petitioner has submitted representation on 07.07.2017 to the 3rd respondent by annexing al l the relevant documents for sanction of family pension. The petitioner has also submitted another representation dated 14.08.2017 to the Member Staff Railway Board, New Delhi . The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that in-spite of petitioner having submitted representation on 07.07.2017, the respondents have not sanctioned the family pension. On these set of facts, the petitioner is before this Court seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

8. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend before this Court is that, in view of amendment to Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 would submit to this Court that, even if, the present petitioner is accepted as second wife, still the respondents-authorities are under legal duty to sanction family pension in the light of amendment brought to the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.