Eligibility for family pension as a post-retiral spouse is contingent upon the legal validity of the marriage; a marriage that is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not entitle the spouse to be recorded as a family pensioner.

For Applicant:- Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, Counsel

For Respondents:- Mr. B. K. Pandey, ASC

O R D E R (Oral)

PER:- MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER[A]

1. Learned Counsel for the applicant has prayed for adjournment of the matter.

2. In view of the fact that this matter was admitted for final hearing on 29.11.2024 when both written statement and rejoinder had been filed and no less than eight dates of listing have passed for final hearing, hence the prayer of Learned Counsel for the applicant for further adjournment is rejected.

3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:

“A. That a direction be issued upon the respondent authorities to substitute the name of “Smt. Indu Devi” as family member eligible for pension in place of his first wife Ranju Devi in the Pension Payment Order of the petitioner who died after retirement of the petitioner from service.

B. That any other relief/ reliefs to which the applicant is entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

5. The case of the applicant, as pleaded in the OA, is that the employee, namely Shri Bhagwat Prasad Mandal, was appointed on 07.06.1978 and, after completing his full tenure of service, retired on superannuation on 31.01.2017 from Jamalpur Rail Factory while holding the post of Senior Technician. Upon retirement, he was sanctioned pension and other post-retiral benefits. The name of his wife, Smt. Ranju Devi, was recorded in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) as the family pensioner. Smt. Ranju Devi expired on 12.08.2020. After the death of his first wife, the employee contracted a second marriage with a lady named Smt. Indu Devi.

6. It is stated that the applicant entered into a second marriage with Smt. Indu Devi before the Marriage Officer, Munger on 13.05.2022. The marriage certificate has been placed on record as Annexure-A/4. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have taken cognizance of the request made by the applicant and examined his claim for substitution of the name of Smt. Indu Devi in place of his deceased wife as the family pensioner.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the rules annexed as Annexure-A/5 with the written statement of the respondents themselves, such a situation has been contemplated. According to the said rules, it is permissible to include the name of a second wife after the death of the first wife by treating her as a post-retiral spouse in the Pension Payment Order of a Railway pensioner. It is, therefore, contended that the claim of the applicant is fully supported by the applicable rules and deserves to be allowed.

8. Per contra, the respondents have contested the claim and filed a written statement. The facts as narrated by the applicant are not disputed, except with regard to the legality of the second marriage, which was subjected to verification by the Welfare Inspector of the respondent department. Since the applicant submitted his application in the prescribed proforma on 10.05.2024, a Welfare Inspector was deputed on 11.05.2024 to verify the genuineness of the claim in accordance with the extant rules. The report submitted by the Welfare Inspector has been brought on record as Annexure-A/8 to the written statement.

9. Subsequently, learned counsel for the respondents filed an additional written statement enclosing the enquiry report, which has been marked as Annexure-R/14. The Welfare Inspector, after conducting a detailed enquiry, concluded on the basis of statements of the employee and Smt. Indu Devi, supporting d