SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6181

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Anita Ganvir – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA/521/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.M. Patrikar
For the Respondents: Shri N.P. Lambat

Under Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a second wife, even if her marriage was void, is entitled to family pension, as the rule provides for payment to more widows than one in equal shares.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Railway Servants Conduct Rules, 1966 - Rule 21 - Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 75(7)(i)(a) - Family Pension - Second Wife - Validity of marriage - Family pension payable to more widows than one - Rule 75(7)(i)(a) contemplates family pension to be paid to more widows than one, meaning even if the marriage is void, the second wife is entitled to family pension - Rule 75 is not in conflict with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and is a step in furtherance of the constitutional goal for emancipation of women. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17)

(B) Estoppel - Principle of res judicata not applicable - Earlier OA withdrawn with liberty granted only to one applicant - Subsequent representation considered and rejected by respondents as per High Court order - Estoppel would not apply to present OA. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant (second wife) married the deceased railway employee in 1990 while his first marriage was still subsisting. The first marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2003. The employee died in 2015. The applicant sought family pension, but it was rejected citing violation of Rule 21 of the Conduct Rules as the marriage was void. The applicant had earlier withdrawn OA No.646/2021, conceding she was not a legally wedded wife. Subsequent representations and writ petitions led to the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 rejecting her claim.

Findings of Court:
Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 specifically provides for payment of family pension to more widows than one, in equal shares. This rule applies even if the second marriage is void. The judgment in OA No.760/2023 followed, which relied on Karnataka High Court decisions and Bombay High Court judgment in Jayawantabai's case, holding that the second wife is entitled to family pension. The Court noted that the Railway Rules are not amended to require a 'legally wedded wife' as in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicant, being the second wife married during the subsistence of her first marriage, is entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and whether the earlier withdrawal of OA No.646/2021 operates as an estoppel.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides for family pension to be paid to more widows than one, overrides the bar under Rule 21 of the Conduct Rules and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the purpose of granting family pension. The second wife is entitled to family pension from the date following the death of the employee. Result : Original Application allowed. The applicant is entitled to family pension from 21st March, 2015, to be granted within three months. No order as to costs. (Para 17, 18)

Table of Content
1. applicant's factual background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents' factual defense and procedural objections. (Para 3)
3. court's analysis of facts, prior litigation, and estoppel. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. ratio decidendi on second wife's family pension rights. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. final order granting family pension from date of death. (Para 18)

ORDER

1.The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“8(a) Quash and set aside the impugned speaking order dated 03.10.2023. Annexure "Al" issued by respondent no. 3;

8(b) Direct the respondents to grant the family pension and continue the benefits such as Free Travel Pass, Free Medical facilities etc. and any other benefits;

8(d) Saddle the cost of the application on the respondents;

8(e) Pass such other orders or reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that the husband of the applicant, namely Late Shri Sharad Keshav Ganvir, was an employee of Central Railway and was working as Tech-II in the Electrical Department. Late, Shri Sharad Keshav Ganvir, expired on 20th March, 2015 during the course of his employment, leaving behind the applicant, one son, and one daughter as his legal heirs.

2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that she married Late Shri Sharad Keshav Ganvir on 15th February, 1990. A copy of the marriage certificate is annexed herewith as Annexure-A3. It is further submitted that the first wife of Late Shri Ganvir, namely Smt. Maya, was not residing with him and subsequently expired on 11th May, 2016. A copy of her death certificate is annexed herewith as Annexure-A4.

2.3 It is submitted that Late Shri Sharad Keshav Ganvir had married Smt. Maya in the year 1982. However, by judgment dated 29th April, 2003 passed by the Hon’ble Family Court, Nagpur, the marriage between Late Shri Ganvir and Smt. Maya was dissolved by mutual consent. In view of the said judgment, Smt. Maya had no nexus of any kind with Late Shri Ganvir thereafter.

2.4 The applicant submits that she married Late Shri Sharad Keshav Ganvir in the year 1990 after divorce proceedings with Smt. Maya had been initiated.

2.5 It is submitted that since the divorce proceedings were initiated by mutual consent, Smt. Maya had consented to Late Shri Ganvir entering into a subsequent marriage with the applicant.

2.6 The applicant submits that under the Hindu Marriage Act, the question of illegality of a second marriage arises only in specific circumstances. In the present case, no objection was ever raised by Smt. Maya during her lifetime. Hence, the applicant is the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Ganvir, and her children are the legal heirs of Late Shri Sharad Ganvir.

2.7 The applicant submits that Ms. Anjali Sharad Ganvir and Master Prashik Sharad Ganvir were born out of the wedlock between the applicant and Late Shri Ganvir. The applicant further submits that being the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Ganvir, she and her children are entitled to all pensionary and other service benefits payable to the legal heirs.

2.8 It is submitted that Late Shri Ganvir was the sole breadwinner of the family, and after his demise, the applicant and her children have been left without any means of livelihood. They are wholly dependent on the benefits arising from his service.

2.9 The applicant further submits that she obtained a Succession Certificate from the Court of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in Succession Case No. 150/2015, by judgment dated 18th June, 2016 (Annexure A-5), in favour of herself and her children.

2.10 The applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 646/2021 seeking grant of pensionary benefits. Since it was an admitted position that the applicant was the second wife, the said O.A. was permitted to be withdrawn. Thereafter,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top