Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10388

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
Savitri Bai @ Savtri Bai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.200/00434/2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Praveen Yadav
For the Respondents: Shri Surendra Pratap Singh

Second wife from Scheduled Tribe with customary polygamy entitled to equal family pension share as Hindu Marriage Act inapplicable; CCS Pension Rules contemplate multiple widows.

Headnote:(A) CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 - Rule 50(8)(c) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 2(2), 5(1), 11 - Scheduled Tribes - Customary law permitting polygamy - Family pension - Deceased government servant from Scheduled Tribe community where custom allows multiple wives - Second wife married per customary law held legally wedded wife entitled to equal share of family pension with first wife - Provisions of Hindu Marriage Act not applicable to Scheduled Tribes - Pension rules contemplate payment to more than one widow in equal shares where legally permissible - Second marriage not void under applicable personal law. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

(B) Pension Rules - Interpretation - Beneficial social legislation - Rule providing for family pension to multiple widows in equal shares applies where personal law permits polygamy - Departmental refusal based on general Hindu law clarification rejected as inapplicable to tribes governed by custom. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
Deceased employee died in harness leaving two widows from Scheduled Tribe community practicing polygamy per custom. Service records recognised first marriage. Civil court initially denied status to second wife but appellate court upheld both marriages as valid per custom, entitling them to equal shares in retiral dues. Department processed joint pension claim but pension authority rejected second wife's entitlement citing general Hindu law prohibition on second marriage, leading to tribunal application for family pension from date of death.

Findings of Court:
Both widows legally married per tribal custom exempt from Hindu Marriage Act. Applicant as second wife qualifies as widow entitled to family pension in equal shares with first wife along with arrears from date of death.

Issues: Whether second wife from Scheduled Tribe community with customary polygamy is entitled to family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules despite departmental reliance on Hindu Marriage Act and general government clarifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Customary second marriage in Scheduled Tribe community is valid as Hindu Marriage Act excludes Scheduled Tribes; such wife is legally wedded and entitled to family pension per Rule 50(8)(c) which expressly provides for equal shares among multiple widows where law permits.

Result: Original Application allowed. Respondents directed to disburse family pension to applicant in equal shares with arrears w.e.f. date of death within 90 days, failing which interest payable.

Table of Content
1. applicant seeks family pension post-husband's death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. service records recognize applicant; civil courts affirm both wives. (Para 3 , 7)
3. respondents deny second wife pension citing hma and ccs rules. (Para 4 , 5 , 8)
4. gond tribe customs permit second marriage; hma inapplicable. (Para 9 , 10)
5. ccs rule 50(8)(c) entitles legally wedded second wife to equal pension share. (Para 11)
6. application allowed; pension with arrears directed. (Para 12)

ORDER

By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;

By way of this Original Application, applicant is seeking family pension after the death of her husband and to provide arrears of the pension w.e.f. 07.03.2013 till date with 18% interest due to delay occurred by the respondents.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s husband Shri Shobhan Singh Maravi was working with the respondent-department as Chargeman died in harness on 07.03.2013 leaving behind his wife Smt. Savitri Bai i.e. applicant, son Surendra Singh and daughter Leela Devi. Applicant is the legally wedded wife of deceased employee and in the service records her name has been mentioned. After the death of Late Sobhan Singh Maravi respondent No.2 has not paid death benefits to the applicant within time and the benefits were paid vide order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure A/3). Final settlement payment of GPF was paid vide order dated 24/26.06.2019 (Annexure A/4). Applicant requested for family pension but the pension cell of department instructed her to furnish information regarding her name. Applicant submitted her application dated 13.09.2018 (Annexure A/5) and affidavit dated 10.09.2018 before the pension cell in the office of respondent No.2. Respondent-department again instructed applicant’s family members to furnish information that they have no objection if pension is being granted to the applicant. Accordingly, son and daughter of the applicant submitted their affidavit along with application dated 18.02.2020 to the respondent-department. Applicant also submitted her application for grant of family pension but nothing has been done. Hence this Original Application.

3. Respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply have submitted that Shri Shobhan Singh Maravi was appointed on 28.06.1983. He declared his mother Smt Manglo Bai as "Next of Kin". He intimated to department that he got married to Ku. Sabitri Bai on 04.06.1984 vide application dated 21.09.1984. Accordingly, necessary entry was made in the service records. He submitted nomination papers on 21.09.1984 mentioning the name of Smt Sabitri Bai as his wife and Smt Manglo Bai as his mother. Thereafter on 16.10.1998, he submitted the nomination papers/details of his family mentioning the name of Smt Sawatri Devi as his wife, Mr. Surender Kumar, Mr. Chetan Singh (both as his sons), Ku Leela Devi as his daughter and Smt Manglo Bai as his mother. The deceased employee was issued Central Govt Health Scheme (CGHS) Index Card mentioning the name of applicant as his wife, Mr. Surender Kumar, Mr. Chetan Singh (both as his sons), Ku Leela Devi as his daughter (Annexure A-2). Shri Shobhan Singh Maravi passed away on 07.03.2013 (Annexure A-1). Smt Dhaniya Bai (Respondent No. 4) claiming herself as wife of late Shri Shobhan Singh Maravi and Shri Dilip Kumar claiming himself as son of deceased employee, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (for grant of succession certificate) before the Court of Ist Civil Judge, Class-1, Mandla (MP) for payment of retiral dues in respect of the deceased employee. The Succession Case was registered as 10/2013 which was decided on 03.03.2016. The Hon'ble Court found that Smt Dhania Bai (the Respondent No. 4 herein) is legally married wife of late Shri Shobhan Singh and Shri Dilip Kumar is the son of late Shri Shobhan Singh. The Hon'ble Court further found that Smt Savitri Bai, (the Applicant herein) is not legally married wife of late Shri Shobhan Singh and that Shri Surendra Maravi and Leela Devi a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10388

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALAkhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative MemberSavitri Bai @ Savtri Bai – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No.200/00434/2020

Second wife from Scheduled Tribe with customary polygamy entitled to equal family pension share as Hindu Marriage Act inapplicable; CCS Pension Rules contemplate multiple widows.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Judicial Member, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
Savitri Bai @ Savtri Bai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.200/00434/2020