IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a legally wedded wife retains her rights to pension and benefits over a subsequent marriage that is void under applicable marriage laws.

JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.) :

1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned order dated March 21, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 20266 of 2012 and W.P.A. 12536 of 2013.

2. Appeals are at the behest of Usha Rani Ojha. She claims herself to be the first wife of the deceased Tapan Kumar Ojha. As the first wife of the deceased employee, she claims family pension and the retiral benefits of the deceased employee.

3. Usha Rani Ojha made a representation to the employer of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. No action being taken on such representation, she filed a writ petition being W.P.A. 12536 of 2013.

4. Arati Ojha also filed a writ petition being W.P.A. 20266 of 2012 claiming retiral benefits and family pension in respect of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased.

5. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the impugned order dated March 21, 2024.

6. Learned advocate appearing for Usha Rani Ojha submits that, she is the first wife of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. In support of such contention, he relies upon proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. being M.R. 152 of 1987 filed before the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated July 28, 1989 passed therein as also the ultimate order passed on compromise on October 28, 2003. He submits that, son of Usha Rani Ojha and Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased deposed in such proceedings. Son was studying in Class V at that material point of time. Marriage between Ushal Rani Ojha and Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased were admitted and acknowledged in such proceedings by Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and accepted to be so by the Jurisdictional Court. He submits that, since the proceedings and the orders passed in M.R. 152 of 1987 establish Usha Rani Ojha to be the legally married wife of Tapan Kumar Ojha, such claim cannot be negated by the employer of Tapan Kumar Ojha. According to him, learned Single Judge erred in not considering such facts in the correct perspective.

7. Learned advocate appearing for Usha Rani Ojha also draws the attention of the Court to the marriage certificate of Arati Ojha. He submits that, marriage certificate is dated October 22, 2003. Such marriage certificate according to him is much after the marriage of Usha Rani Ojha with Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. He contends that marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Arati Ojha is a void marriage since marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha were subsisting on the date on which those two persons claim themselves to marry each other.

8. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha submits that, proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., are not binding upon his client. His client was not a party to such proceedings. Such proceedings did not return any finding of marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha. He also draws the attention of the Court to a portion of the deposition of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased who in cross-examination denied that he married any government employee.

9. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha submits that the final order passed in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was on compromise. According to him, Usha Rani Ojha made false statements before such Court.

10. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha submits, on instructions, that a sum of about Rupees 39 lakhs was received by his client during the pendency of the appeal from the employer as death cum retirement benefits and arrears of pension.

11. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha draws the attention of the Court to WPSEB Employees (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1985 in particular to Note –I to Regulation 19 thereof. He submits that, where a deceased employee was survived by more than one widow, family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. He submits that his client is ready and willing to share the family pen