Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
Kabilas Devi, W/o Late Barhan Mandal – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(S) No.2337 of 2023
Decided on : 07-02-2024
[FAMILY PENSION] - [Eligibility of Second Wife for Family Pension] - [CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 7(a)(i)] - [The court discussed Rule 7(a)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that family pension is payable to widows in equal shares. The court interpreted 'widow' to mean a legally wedded wife, concluding that the petitioner, as the second wife, did not qualify for the pension as she could not prove her legal marriage to the deceased employee. The court emphasized the necessity of legal recognition of marriage for entitlement to family pension, ultimately affirming the Tribunal's decision to deny the claim.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Kabilas Devi, sought family pension benefits after the death of her husband, Barhan Mandal, a railway employee. The claim was denied by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the grounds that she was the second wife and not legally wedded, as the first wife had predeceased Barhan Mandal. The petitioner argued that she was recognized as his wife in various documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner could not establish her status as a legally wedded wife under Rule 7(a)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, stating that the petitioner did not meet the legal requirements to be considered a widow entitled to family pension.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner can be considered a widow under Rule 7(a)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972? 2. Is the rejection of the family pension claim based on the status of the petitioner as a second wife valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'widow' in Rule 7(a)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, refers specifically to a legally wedded wife. The petitioner failed to prove her legal marriage to the deceased employee, thus disqualifying her from receiving family pension benefits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to deny the family pension claim to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No.051/00078/2023 whereby and whereunder the relief as was sought for by the writ petitioner before the learned Tribunal for holding her entitled to get the benefit of family pension, has been denied to be given.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as:-
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner, late Barhan Mandal was appointed in Railway on 08.04.1984 and took Voluntary Retirement from service as Shunt Man on 31.03.2016, after rendering nearly 32 years of unblemished service.
4. The husband of the petitioner solemnized marriage with Late Dhaneshwari Devi but Dhaneshwari Devi left the matrimonial house. Since Late Dhaneshwari Devi left the matrimonial house, there was no female in the house to look after the father and mother of Late Barhan Mandal (husband of the petitioner) and at this situation the father of the Late Barhan Mandal solemnized the marriage of the petitioner with Late Barhan Mandal.
5. Late Barhan Mandal got married in the early childhood with one Dhaneshwari Devi and from that marriage, he begot 3 children namely Yashoda Devi, Reso Mandal and Pyari Mandal but she left the matrimonial House and started living in her parental home as because at that time Barhan Mandal was unemployed. Dhaneshwari Devi did not return for more than a decade and only thereafter, Late Barhan Mandal married this petitioner. From this wedlock, all together 5 children were born namely Pradeep Mandal, Dewyanti Devi, Chinta Devi, Sarita Devi & Ashok Mandal. It is pertinent to mention here that all the children born out of wedlock between Dhaneshwari Devi and Barhan Mandal are major and married having age more than 40 years. Similarly, children born out of the wedlock between Late Barhan Mandal and petitioner are major and married.
6. After VRS, the deceased employee was issued a pension and was getting his pension regularly till his death. Due to illness the husband of the petitioner, late Barhan Mandal died on 11.05.2021.
7. The claim of the grant of family pension to the Petitioner who is wife of the deceased employee namely late Barhan Mandal has been rejected vide letter dated 11.10.2022 on the ground that she is the second wife of the Late Barhan Mandal as there is no such policy to grant family pension to second wife.
8. The first wife Dhaneshwari Devi predeceased Late Barhan Mandal on 10.12.2018.
9. After the death of the late Barhan Mandal, petitioner applied for the grant of family pension.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the pension paper very categorically mentions the petitioner to be the wife of the deceased employee and nominee in the pension. In all the government documents, the petitioner’s name is mentioned as the wife of the deceased employee namely Barhan Mandal. Even the villagers have given in writing that petitioner was married to Late Barhan Mandal and she is the only surviving wife who is living in destitute.
11. The petitioner has earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application being O.A No. 051/00078/2023 with a prayer for quashing the letter dated 11/10/2022, whereby respondent, rejected the claim of family pension and for direction upon the respondents to sanction family pension and accordingly pay the family pension with accrued arrears to the applicant, after quashing the aforementioned orders.
12. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.03.2023 dismissed the aforesaid original application on the ground that the applicant in hand cannot be said to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and therefore, neither under this Rule or any other Rule she can be granted family pension. Against the aforesaid order of the
A second wife cannot claim family pension benefits unless she can prove her legal marriage to the deceased employee, as the definition of 'widow' under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, requires legal r....
Pension is a protected right under Article 300-A of the Constitution; denial of family pension to a legally wedded second wife without due process violates principles of natural justice.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
A putative second wife, whose marriage to the deceased is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Rules.
Point of Law : In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid.
Pension benefits cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction in the presence of competing marriage claims; a definitive legal spouse must be established in civil court settings.
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
