A second wife may be entitled to family pension under amended rules despite existing complications if the first marriage is legally dissolved.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“....... call for all the relevant file of papers/records relating to the issuance of Annexure A-7, A-11, A- 12 & A-13 from the respondents herein & peruse the same; (b) Quash/set aside letter No.SA/P.676/CPGRAMS/E-445385 dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure A-&) issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (c)Quash/set aside the letter No.SA/P.579/Settle/CPGRAM/AM dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure A-11) issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (d) Quash/set aside the letter NO.SA/P.579/Settle/AM dated 24.04.2024(Annexure A-12) issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (e)Quash/set aside the letter No.SA/G.50/PG/2023-2024/CPGRAMS Appeal- 73dated 26.04.2024 (Annexure A-13) issued by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Salem Division; (f)Direct the respondents in this Original Application to include the name of applicant's wife Smt. Thamariselvi in the Pension Payment Order No.20177061000210 issued to the applicant so that she get family pension & other service/financial benefits that are admissible to her in the capacity of wife of the applicant, after the demise of the applicant and (g) pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this cae and thus render justice.”

2. The essential facts giving rise to the filing of the present OA are as follows:

The Applicant was working as a Pointsman in the Salem Division of Southern Railway. The post of Pointsman in the Railways is classified as a safety category post. During a medical examination, he was medically de- categorized and was consequently kept in a supernumerary post. The Applicant retired from Railway service on 31.03.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submits that he married one Ms. Rani on 01.05.1979, and through the said marriage they were blessed with two male children and one female child. Out of the two male children, one is a physically challenged person. It is also submitted by him that the said Ms. Rani deserted him in the year 1995, leaving him to take care of the children on his own. Thereafter, the Applicant approached the Village Panchayat for redressal of the family dispute, in which Ms. Rani also participated. Due to the adamant attitude of Ms. Rani, the village elders prepared a written Mahazar, commonly referred to as a “Panchayat Muchalika”, narrating the events that transpired during the Panchayat held on 17.06.1996, including the version given by Ms. Rani. The said document was also signed by Ms. Rani. Subsequently, owing to pressure from family elders and in order to take care of his physically challenged child and the other children, the Applicant married Ms. Tamaraiselvi on 21.08.1999. Through the said marriage, the Applicant was blessed with one female child. He further submits that he filed HMOP No.127/2017 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, seeking dissolution of his marriage with Ms. Rani. By order dated 27.02.2018, the Sub Court, Kallakurichi, dissolved the marriage between the Applicant and Ms. Rani. Thereafter, the Applicant registered his marriage with Ms. Tamaraiselvi before the office of the Sub-Registrar on 22.04.2019. Subsequently, he submitted a representation dated 31.10.2022 requesting the respondents to include the name of his wife, Ms. Tamaraiselvi, in the Railway records so that she may be entitled to receive family pension after his demise. However, the said request was rejected by the respondents through the impugned orders dated 19.03.2024, 24.04.2024, and 26.04.2025. Aggrieved by the