BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER RESERVED ON : 01.12.2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 03.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.2080 of 2022 Mrs.S.Jeni Ammal ....Petitioner Vs The Principal Chief Security Commissioner Railway Protection Force Moore Market Complex Chennai 600 003 ....Respondent Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent vide No.X/P/C/500/Sr/2021 dated 07.12.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially for a direction, directing the respondent to consider my representation dated 10.01.2022 with regard to grant of Family Pension with effect from 25.10.2007 without any further delay within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Anto Prince For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by the second wife of a railway employee challenging the order passed by the respondent herein wherein her request for grant of family pension has been rejected.

(A).Factual Background

2.One Sri.S.Ramaiah was working in the railways had attained superannuation on 31.08.1985. He entered into a second marriage with the writ petitioner on 06.01.1975. His first wife namely Mrs.R.Anbu had passed away on 21.04.1996. The employee had died on 25.10.2007. Seeking family pension, the writ petitioner had approached the railways. Under the impugned order dated 07.12.2021, the request of the petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that when the writ petitioner got married Sri.S.Ramaiah, his first wife was still alive. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. These facts are not in dispute.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had contended that when the petitioner got married to the employee, she was not aware of the fact that his first wife was still alive. The petitioner is an innocent lady who has been duped by the railway employee. He replied upon Rule 75(7)(i)(a) of Railway Services (Pension) Amendment Rules 2016 and contended that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. He further pointed out that on the death of a widow, her share of the family pension, shall become payable to her eligible child. Therefore, according to him, even pension Rules provide for payment of pension to the second wife.

4.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000(1) MLJ 135 (SC) (Rameswari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others); 2015 (14) SCC 511 (Raj Kumari and others Vs.Krishna and others); the decision of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench reported in 2016 (3) MhLj 836 (Draupada and others Vs. Indubai and others); 2017 (6) MhLj 816 (Indubai Jaydeo Pawar and others Vs.Draupada and others) and 2019 (3) MhLj 921 ( Kamalbai and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others). He also relied upon the order passed in W.P.No.111260 of 2017 (Smt.Shanta Sadani Vs. General Manager, South Western Railyway and others) by the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench and the order passed in RSA.No.100321 of 2020 (Smt.Davalbi Vs. Smt.Shamshad Begum and others) by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. He also relied upon a decision made in W.P.No. 15979 of 2022 ( Pushpa Vs. Y.Jansi Rani and others) by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. He further relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.27317 of 2016 (S.Kumarammal Vs. The Accountant General, Chennai-18) in support of his contention.

5.Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India had relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000(1) MLJ 135 (SC) (Rameswari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others); 2015 (14) SCC 511 (Raj Kumari and others Vs.Krishn