Service Rules Do Not Debar Legally Married Second Wife Of Deceased Railway Employee From Claiming Pension: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that Rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 does not bar a Hindu second wife from claiming pension benefits, more so when the second marriage was performed after demise of the first wife.

"A reading of the above rule, does not show that the 2nd wife is not entitled for the family pension. Rule 75(6) (i) specifically mentions “in the case of a widow or a widower, up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier”. The 1st respondent herein being the 2nd wife, it cannot be said that she is not the widow and is not covered under Rule 75 (6)(i) of the Pension Rules,1993. The 1st respondent being the widow, is also entitled under the Pension Rules," a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan observed.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Railways challenging a Trial Court order granting succession certificate to the 2nd wife of a deceased employee.

Originally, a petition was filed by the 2nd wife for grant of Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, in respect of deceased employee's PF assets, leave salary, etc. The children born from the first wed-lock of the deceased however, challenged the petition and claimed to be the sole beneficiaries.

The 2nd wife referred to a Suit filed amongst her and the children from the 1st wife, wherein a Lok Adalat decree was passed confirming the share of each party from that of the deceased employee. The Central Government claimed that they were not part of the Lok Adalat award and hence not entitled to pay any benefits.

The trial court noted that a valid marriage was subsisting between the deceased and his second wife and that the Lok Adalat award entitled her to a certain share. Thus, it granted the success certificate to the 2nd wife and her two children.

Challenging the same, the present appeal was filed by the Central Government.

The division bench noted that although the central government challenged the grant of Succession Certificate, they did not challenge the legality of the marriage itself.

"It has not been argued that the marriage of the 2nd wife with the deceased employee was during the continuance of his marriage with the 1st wife. It could not be pointed out from the counter affidavit of the appellants filed in SAOP case that any such stand was taken before the learned Court. We have also perused the counter of the appellant's filed in the succession case, placed before us. There is only general denial of the contents of the petition for succession certificate. It is not their case, that the marriage of 2nd wife was void."

The bench noted that the trial court had considered all necessary documents and passed a reasoned order. Coming to the Lok Adalat award which the Central Government claimed not to be a part of, the bench held, be that as if may, the Government cannot escape its responsibility of paying the due benefits.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

Case title: The Divisional Railway Manager and another vs. Kattem Prashanth Kumari and others

Counsel for the petitioners : Mallampalli Srinivas

Counsel for the respondents: S.Raja Bhogendra Nath

Click Here To Read/Download Order