UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANESHIBAI ALIAS SUNDERIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINAY JOSHI, J 1. Challenge in this petition is by petitioners Union of India through it General Manager, South East Central Railway (SECR) to the legality and correctness of the order dated 18.07.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur [CAT] in Original Application No.2090/2015, by which the CAT has directed to release family pension to the then applicant/respondent herein.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that one Ghasiram was working as a Gangman with SECR. He retired on superannuation on 30.06.2001. He had a wife namely Sunderbai, who died on 25.08.2002, whilst Ghasiram died on 12.03.2003. One Ganeshibai / respondent claimed to be second wife of Ghasiram and accordingly she had claimed family pension from petitioners by issuing various communications and particularly legal notice dated 21.03.2008. It was her claim that she being widow of Ghasiram in the capacity of legally wedded wife, is entitled for family pension after demise of Ghasiram. Pension claim of Ganeshibai came to be rejected by petitioners SECR vide communication dated 11.03.2006. It was informed that the Railways through Section Personal Inspector investigated the pension claim and found that Ganeshibai was second wife of deceased employee - Ghasiram, and therefore, she is not entitled for pension. It is stated that though pension papers submitted by Ghasiram bears a joint photograph of Ganeshibai with Ghasiram, however, Ghasiram misrepresented by stating her name as Sunderbai. Precisely, the claim was Ganeshibai was rejected on the count that she is not legally weeded wife of Ghasiram.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 11.03.2008, respondent preferred Original Application No.2133/2012, claiming family pension. In said round of litigation, respondent claimed that she belongs to a tribal community namely 'Gond', and her late husband also belong to said community. As per the custom prevailing in said community, second marriage is permissible, and therefore, her marriage is legal and she is entitled for family pension. The CAT observed that during enquiry the railway department itself found that the deceased employee had married twice during his life time and Ganeshibai/respondent, is his second wife. The Tribunal referred to Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (1993 Rules), wherein sub-rule [7][i] [a] of Rule 75 of the 1993 Rules, stipulates that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. In view of that the Tribunal directed petitioners to consider the case of respondent afresh in adherence to Sub-rule [7][i][a] of Rule 75 of the 1993 Rules, and also in the light of the relevant provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Kumari Bai .vrs. Anandrao.