Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 828
In The High Court At Calcutta
Jayanta Kumar Biswas and Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Petitioner
Vs
Seema Chakraborty & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.C.T. No. 125 of 2014
Decided On : 05-12-2014q
For the Petitioners: Mr. Moloy Kumar Das
A second wife of a deceased Hindu railway servant, whose marriage took place during the lifetime of his first wife, is not entitled to any share of the benefits becoming payable on the death of the railway servant, but the eligible children or child of the second wife would be entitled to share the benefits with the first wife and the children or child through the first wife.
Headnote:
RAILWAY SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1993 - FAMILY PENSION - RR. 70, 71, 75 - RAILWAY BOARD ESTABLISHMENT SERIAL NO. 26 OF 1997 DATED MARCH 3, 1997 - VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES - CHILDREN FROM VOID OR VOIDABLE MARRIAGES ENTITLED TO PENSIONARY BENEFITS - SECOND WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO SHARE OF BENEFITS - FIRST WIFE AND CHILDREN FROM FIRST WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Eastern Railway, challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, which held that both the first respondent (Rajat's second wife) and the eighth respondent (Rajat's first wife) were entitled to share the family pension equally. The petitioners contended that the first respondent's marriage with Rajat was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore, she was not entitled to any share of the benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the first respondent was entitled to receive a part of the benefits that became payable on Rajat's death. The court found that the first respondent's marriage with Rajat was void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and therefore, she was not entitled to any share of the benefits. The court also held that the eligible children or child of the first respondent would be entitled to share the benefits with the eighth respondent and the children or child through the eighth respondent.
Issues: Whether the first respondent, Rajat's second wife, was entitled to a share of the family pension, despite her marriage with Rajat being void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Railway Board Establishment Serial No. 26 of 1997 dated March 3, 1997, which stated that no share of the benefits becoming payable on the death of a Hindu railway servant can be claimed by the second wife of the railway servant, if he had married the second wife during the lifetime of his first wife; but that the eligible children or child would be entitled to share the benefits with the first wife of the deceased railway servant and the children or child through the first wife.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Tribunal order, allowed the writ petition, and dismissed the first-seventh respondents' OA.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
The petitioners in the WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated July 9, 2014 are questioning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench dated April 4, 2014 disposing of an OA No.350/00197/2014 of the first seven respondents dated February 12, 2014.
2. One Rajat Ranjan Chakraborty was working in the Eastern Railway as a Welfare Inspector. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for unauthorised absence from office. The disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement from railway service on April 17, 2003. Rajat submitted pension papers mentioning in Form 6 that the first respondent was his wife, and that the second-seventh respondents were his children.
3. Rajat was paid all retirement benefits except DCRG. It was withheld on the grounds that he was in unauthorised occupation of the railway quarters that had been allotted to him. He was evicted from the quarters on February 16, 2012. He died on May 8, 2013. Payment of DCRG amount after deduction of penal rent and other dues was in the process. The first respondent claimed the family pension as Rajat’s wife.
4. The office records of the Eastern Railway, however, revealed that the eighth respondent, Anjali Chakraborty, was Rajat’s first wife, and that the compulsory retirement notice issued to Rajat had been received by Anjali qua his wife at his Naihati railway quarters residence. Under the circumstances, Eastern Railway requested the North 24-Parganas Collector to make an inquiry. The report of the Collector was also that Rajat was survived by two wives (Anjali and the first respondent).
5. Under the circumstances, Eastern Railway wrote a letter dated January 16, 2014 to the first respondent. Eastern Railway informed the first respondent that her marriage with Rajat being a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Anjali, Rajat’s first legally married wife, would be entitled to family pension, not she (the first respondent); but that her eligible child, Subrata, the sixth respondent, would be entitled to share the family pension equally with Anjali.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Eastern Railway contained in its letter dated January 16, 2014, the first seven respondents filed the OA.
7. The petitioners filed a reply to the OA dated March 12, 2014 and they gave the reasons supporting their decision contained in the letter dated January 16, 2014.
8. Referring to rr.70, 71 and 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the Tribunal held that since under the rules more than one widow of a deceased railway servant would be entitled to receive the retirement benefits of a deceased railway servant, all the respondents would be entitled to the retirement benefits according to their respective shares; and that the first and the eighth respondents both would equally share the family pension.
9. Mr. Das appearing for the petitioners has said that more than one affidavit of service has been filed stating that notices of the WPCT sent to the respondents were duly served on them. However, none appears for the respondents.
10. Mr. Das has submitted as follows. The order of the Tribunal contravened of the Railway Board Establishment Serial No.26 of 1997 dated March 3, 1997 in that the first respondent’s marriage being a void marriage under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, though her eligible children or child would have been entitled to the benefits that became payable on Rajat’s death, the first respondent herself was not entitled to any share of it. The decision of this court in Pratima Chaudhury v. Director of Pension, (2011) 1 Cal LT 115 supports the petitioners’ case.
11. The Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 came into force on December 3, 1993; and before this date the pension rules applicable to the railway servants were contained in the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 and the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume II (1971 Edition). Whi
