Point of Law: Pension Benefits of - Legal heirs - Even if a Government servant has contracted a second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage, the children born out of such a second marriage would still be legitimate, though the second marriage itself would be void.

JUDGMENT :

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.02.2013 passed by the Family Court, Secunderabad in F.C.O.P. No. 331 of 2009, preferred by the respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. Before the learned Family Court, the appellants herein were arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 3; respondents No. 1 to 3 were the petitioners and the respondent No. 4/Railways Department was arrayed as the respondent No. 1. The parties are hereinafter being referred to as they were arrayed in the OP filed before the learned Family Court.

3. The captioned OP was filed by the petitioners, for declaration, declaring them as the legal heirs of late A. Ram Das, who was working in the respondent No. 1/Railway Department till he expired on 12.10.2006. The petitioners had also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondent No. 1/Railway Department to release his pensionary and other service benefits in their favour. Petitioner No. 1 described herself as the wife and the petitioners No. 2 and 3 as the children of late A. Ram Das. The petitioners averred in the petition that the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 had taken place with late A. Ram Das on 25.05.1972, at Yadagirigutta, as per Hindu rituals and traditions. A. Ram Das was working in the respondent No. 1/Railway Department on the post of a Senior Technician, Diesel Shed, Kazipet. He expired on 12.10.2006, leaving behind the petitioners as his sole legal heirs. The petitioners submitted a letter dated 29.11.2006 to the respondent No. 1/Railway Department along with supportive documents, for release of family pension and settlement of the dues of late A. Ram Das. Respondents No. 2 and 3 also lodged a claim with the respondent No. 1/Railway Department on the family pension of the deceased on a plea that she was the wife of late A. Ram Das and the respondent No. 3 was born from the wedlock and both of them were entitled to family pension. Respondent No. 1/Railway Department conducted an enquiry whereafter they addressed a letter dated 28.09.2007 to the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 intimating them that the marriage of the respondent No. 2 with late A. Ram Das, performed on 08.08.1976, cannot be recognized and it was a nullity, since the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 with late A. Ram Das, was performed earlier, on 25.05.1972, and it was still valid and subsisting at the time of the demise of the employee. However after a month, the respondent No. 1 addressed another letter dated 02.11.2007 to the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 informing them that after receiving a representation dated 11.10.2017 from the respondent No. 2, the Department had reexamined the matter and this time arrived at the conclusion that it was the respondent No. 2 who was the legally wedded wife of late A. Ram Das and not the petitioner No. 1. As such, the pensionary benefits of late A. Ram Das would be payable to the respondent No. 2.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondent No. 1/Railway Department, the petitioners filed O.S. No. 1037 of 2007, wherein it was averred that having held that the petitioners were the legal heirs of late A. Ram Das, during the first round of scrutiny, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1/Railway Department to have reopened the matter and resiled from the earlier letter dated 02.11.2007, declaring them as the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned trial court declined to entertain the said suit and directed the petitioners to approach the appropriate court for relief. The petitioners then filed F.C.O.P. No. 331 of 2001 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad praying inter-alia that they be declared as the legal heirs of late A. Ram Das and sought issuance of a direction to the respondent No. 1/Railway Department to release/pay the pensionary and other benefits exclusively to them. The respondents No. 2 and 3 contested the claim of the petitioners and filed a reply wherein they submitted that the petitioner No. 1 w