Nivedita Ashok Shamkuwar legal guardian through mother Vandana Ashok Shamkuwar vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs: “8(i) Quash and set aside the Order dated 30.9.2024 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway/ Respondent No.3(Annexure "A-1") thereby rejecting the representation dated 12.7.2024 seeking directions to direct the Respondents to hold and declare that the Applicant is entitled to 50% share to the claim

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi of the pensionary benefits w.e.f. the date of death of Ashok Shamkuwar i.e., 29.2.2021 till date and further direct the Respondents to initiate recovery proceedings against the Respondent No.3 and recover 50% of the amount already disbursed in her favour and stop disbursing 50% of the monthly pensionary benefits being disbursed in favour of the Respondent No.3 and recover and pay the said proceeds to the Applicant along with interest within a stipulated time frame that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper and in the alternative direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 to decide the representation made by the Applicant dated 1.2.2024.; 8(ii) Quash and set aside the Investigation report dated 10.8.2024 issued by the Chief Employee Welfare Inspector / Respondent No.4 (Annexure "A-2") thereby, that Nivedita / Applicant is not the daughter of the deceased Ashok Shamkuwar on the ground that the said inquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law .; 8(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an appropriate direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to grant /disburse / pay the Applicant 50% of the pensionary benefits w.e.f. 29.3.2021 within a stipulated time frame that this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper.;

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

8(iv) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an appropriate direction to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate recovery proceedings against Respondent No.5 /Bebinanda and recover 50% of the pensionary benefits which have been already disbursed and have been accepted /claimed by her w.e.f. 29.3.2021 till date and after recovering the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% from the Respondent No.5 pay the said proceeds to Applicant within a stipulated time frame that this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper; 8(v) Grant such further and other reliefs that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper; 8(vi) grant costs of the Application be provided for; “

2. The facts, in brief, as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant is the minor daughter of late Ashok Shamkuwar, who was holding the post of Office Assistant/ Electrical/ Nagpur/ Peon/Group-D with the South East Central Railway. The applicant’s father died in harness on 29th March, 2021. He was initially married to Bebinanda (Respondent No.5). Thereafter, he

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi married Vandana, the mother of the applicant, and was blessed with one child from the said marriage, namely, Nivedita Ashok Shamkuwar (present applicant). 2.2

It is submitted that late Ashok Shamkuwar did not legally sever his ties with his first wife, Bebinanda Ashok Shamkuwar, by obtaining a divorce before entering into the second marriage with Vandana Shamkuwar. The applicant states that her mother, being rustic and uneducated, was unaware of the legal rights of children born from a second marriage and, therefore, did not approach the Railway authorities at the time of her husband’s death to claim pensionary and other benefits on behalf of her daughter. Consequently, Respondent No.5/Bebinanda, despite aware of the existence of the applicant, i.e. the daughter of the second wife, suppressed this fact from the Railway authorities/respondents and claimed the entire pensionary benefits, including provident fund, gratuity and other dues, in her favour.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

2.3

It is further submitted that Respondent No.5/Bebinanda also applied for compassionate appointment after the death of Ashok Shamkuwar and was subsequently granted such appointment in the Railways, where she has been working and receiving salary as well as monthly pension. 2.4

It is contended that the applicant, being the daughter of the second wife and a legitimate child under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is legally entitled to 50% of the pensionary benefits/proceeds with effect from the date of death of her father, i.e., from 29th March, 2021. 2.5

Being aggrieved, the applicant, on 1st February, 2024, submitted a legal notice/representation to the Divisional Railway Manager/Respondent No.1, calling upon the said authority to stop the pensionary benefits being paid to Respondent No.1, the first wife, with immediate effect and/or to grant her only 50% of the monthly pension till adjudication of the present dispute, and

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi further to initiate recovery proceedings against the first wife with regard to 50% of the pensionary benefits illegally claimed by the first wife with effect from 30th March, 2021 and payment of recovered amount to the applicant. However, the said legal notice/representation was not decided by Respondent No.1 2.6

It is further contended that, due to the non-adjudication of the notice/representation dated 1st February, 2024, the applicant was compelled to file O.A. No.250/2024 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal, vide its order dated 19th March, 2024, passed in O.A. No.250/2024, directed the applicant to make a fresh representation under her signature along with the representation submitted by her Advocate on 1st February, 2024 and further directed the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway/Respondent No.2 to decide and dispose of the aforesaid representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the receipt

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi of such representation. 2.7

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, on 5th April, 2024, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondents informing them about the order dated 19th March, 2024 passed by this Tribunal and the same was received by the respondents on 18th April, 2024. The applicant requested the respondents to decide her representation dated 5th April, 2024, along with the representation dated 1st February, 2024 submitted by her Advocate, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the representation, in compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 19th March, 2024. 2.8

The respondents, in their reply filed in the contempt proceedings, admitted that the said representation had misplaced in the Dispatch Section and, therefore, had not reached the Settlement Section. 2.9

On 14th May, 2024, the Senior Divisional Personnel

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Officer, South East Central Railway, Nagpur, issued a letter to the applicant informing her that, in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 19th March, 2024, the Railway Administration had decided to initiate inquiry proceedings to verify the validity/genuineness of the claim of the applicant, i.e. whether the applicant was the daughter of Ashok and Vandana. 2.10 It is contended that on 12th July, 2024, the applicant submitted another representation to the respondents, reminding them of the order passed by this Tribunal dated 19th March, 2024, whereby the respondents were directed to decide her fresh representation dated 5th April, 2024, within the stipulated period of four weeks. 2.11 It is further contended that on 10th August, 2024, the Chief Employee Welfare Inspector/Respondent No.4, after allegedly conducting an inquiry, submitted an inquiry report,

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi rejecting the claim of the applicant without properly conducting an inquiry and/or without assigning any reasons to justify the conclusion reached in the inquiry. As per the inquiry report, statement of four witnesses was recorded, namely: i. Vandana Ashok Shamkuwar (Second Wife of the Deceased); ii. Sunil Shriram Shamkuwar (Brother of the Deceased); iii. Respondent No.5/Bebinanda (First Wife of the Deceased); and iv. Shailesh Shrawan Bagade (Friend of the Deceased).

2.12 It is contended that the Chief Employee Welfare Inspector failed to verify or analyze the documents submitted by the applicant, including public documents such as her Birth Certificate, school documents and Aadhaar Card, etc. 2.13 The inquiry report records that as per the statement of Vandana, she was the second wife of deceased Ashok Shamkuwar,

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi which fact was admitted. The report further records that Sunil Shriram Shamkuwar was the brother of the deceased Ashok Shamkuwar and that Ashok had nominated Sunil Shriram Shamkuwar for 40% of the National Pension Scheme, which had not been disbursed in favour of Sunil Shriram Shamkuwar till date. Further, as per the statement of Respondent No.5/Bebinanda Shamkuwar, she was the only wife of the deceased Ashok Shamkuwar and that the applicant/Nivedita Shamkuwar was not his child. It is submitted that no evidence was submitted to prove her claim; in fact, she had not disputed any of the documents submitted by the applicant. It is also contended that she was a party to the proceedings in O.A. No.250/2024. 2.14 It is submitted that the inquiry report also refers to the statement of Shailesh Shrawan Bagade, a friend of the deceased, who stated that Bebinanda was the only wife of the deceased Ashok Shamkuwar and denied that Vandana was his second wife.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

2.15 On the basis of the aforesaid statements, Respondent No.4 concluded that Bebinanda was the only wife of deceased Ashok Shamkuwar and that Nivedita Shamkuwar/applicant was not the daughter of deceased Ashok Shamkuwar. The report also relies upon the statement of one Abdul Rafiq, who is alleged stated to be a neighbour at the address mentioned in the cause title of O.A. No.250/2024. According to the report, Abdul Rafiq orally informed the respondents that Vandana’s husband had died in a road accident in the year 2014-15 and denied that Ashok Shamkuwar was the husband of Vandana. 2.16 It is submitted that the inquiry report does not disclose any reasons as to how Respondent No.4 arrived at such a conclusion. Further, the report does not deal with or analyze any of the documents submitted by the applicant, including her Birth Certificate and other public documents. The applicant, therefore, contends that the inquiry report dated 10th August, 2024 is illegal,

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi arbitrary and contrary to law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2.17 It is further submitted that the inquiry report dated 10th August, 2024 was never communicated to the applicant. It is submitted that when the applicant’s uncle, Sunil Shamkuwar, visited the office of the respondents and requested them to provide a copy of the inquiry report, the respondent refused to provide the same. 2.18 The applicant came to know about the inquiry report only after filing Contempt Petition No.221/2024 against the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer/Respondent No.2 for implementation and execution of the order passed in O.A. No.250/2024 dated 19th March, 2024. In the said contempt proceedings, Respondent No.2 filed a reply, which was received by the Advocate for the applicant on 4th February, 2025. It was only then the applicant came to know about the inquiry report dated 10th August, 2024 and the

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi communication dated 30th September, 2024. 2.19 It is submitted that, on 30th September, 2024, the Divisional Personnel Officer issued a letter to the applicant rejecting her claim and holding that she was not entitled to 50% of the pensionary benefits, including 50% of the monthly benefits which had accrued to and/or been disbursed in favour of Respondent No.5, the first wife of the deceased. 2.20 Being aggrieved by the letter/order dated 30th September, 2024 issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway as well as the inquiry report dated 10th August, 2024 issued by the Chief Staff and Welfare Inspector, Nagpur, rejecting her claim for grant/disbursement/payment of 50% of the family pensionary benefits with effect from 29th March, 2021, on the ground that she was not the daughter of the deceased Ashok Shamkuwar, without providing any reasoning, the applicant has filed the present Original Application before this

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Tribunal.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed their reply contending that the Railway Administration conducted the investigation through the Welfare Inspector and it is revealed in the investigation report that Smt. Bebinanda was the only wife of late employee and that it was not proved that Ku. Nivedita was the minor daughter of the late employee. It is further contended that the present case has been created by using the same name as that of late Ashok Shamkuwar. 3.2

It is contended that the late employee had neither informed the Railway Administration about his alleged second wife, namely, Smt. Vandana Shamkuwar, nor obtained any permission from the Department in this regard. It is further contended that, during his lifetime, the late employee did not inform the Railway Administration about the applicant, who is alleged to have been born from the said second marriage.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

3.3

It is further submitted that, as per service records, Smt. Bebinanda was recorded as the wife of the late employee. Accordingly, compassionate appointment and all terminal benefits were extended/disbursed to Smt. Bebinanda, widow of the late employee. Therefore, according to the respondents, the claim of Ku. Nivedita, an unmarried daughter of the ex. employee, for 50% of the pensionary benefits does not arise. 3.4

It is submitted that, pursuant to the order dated 19th March, 2024, passed by this Tribunal, Campt at Nagpur, in OA No.250/2024, the Railway Administration decided to inquire into the claim of the applicant and deputed the Chief Welfare Inspector to conduct the inquiry. The Welfare Inspector submitted his report dated 10th August, 2024 to the respondents on 12th August, 2024, concluding that Smt. Bebinanda was the only wife of the late employee. The inquiry further revealed that the present case has been created by using the same name as that of late employee with

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi mala fide intention. 3.5

It is further submitted that relying on the said inquiry report, the respondents communicated to the applicant that her claim for 50% of the pensionary benefits could not be established. Accordingly, her claim was rejected, as per the extant rules, vide office letter No.P/NGP/SET/Court Case/2018/05/Nivedita Ashok Shamkuwar dated 30th September, 2024. 3.6

It is further submitted that, as per the inquiry report dated 10th August, 2024, submitted by the Welfare Inspector on 12th August, 2024, the following factual findings emerged from the investigation:

i) There was no proof of marriage between Smt. Vandana and the late employee, who was a Railway employee. It is stated that Smt. Vandana was also unable to furnish the date of marriage or specific information regarding late Ashok Shamkuwar or his family. She stated that her date of birth was 7th August, 1970 and

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

that she was married at the age of 16 years. According to the respondents, the age difference of 19 years between her and the late employee at the time of the alleged marriage was contradictory.

ii) In the instant case, the information was given by two persons. First, a photograph of late employee Ashok Shriram Shamkuwar was shown to Abdul Rafiq, a neighbour of Smt. Vandana, who stated that the person in the photograph was not the husband of Smt. Vandana. Secondly, Shan Siddique, who had purchased the house from Smt. Vandana, stated that said Smt. Vandana's husband had expired in road accident in 2014-15, whereas the employee had expired on 29th March, 2021.

iii) It is further stated that Shri Sunil Shamkuwar, brother of the late Ashok Shamkuwar, had, with mala fide intention, allegedly inspired Smt. Vandana to present the case before this Tribunal at Nagpur, by claiming herself to be the second wife and Ku. Nivedita, to be the minor daughter, as stated by Shri Shailesh

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Shrawan Bagde on 30th May, 2024.

iv) The investigation report of the Chief SWI concluded that Smt. Bebinanda was the only wife of the deceased employee, late Ashok Shamkuwar, on the basis of which the necessary documentation was processed.

v) Shri Shailesh Shrawan Bagde, TM/SONR, admitted in his statement that Smt. Bebinanda was the wife of the deceased employee, late Ashok Shamkuwar, and stated that it was the mala fide intention of Shri Sunil Shamkuwar, brother of the ex- employee, to present Smt. Vandana as his second wife.

vi) The Sectional Chief SWI, revealed in his investigation report that, Smt. Bebinanda was the only wife of late Ashok Shamkuwar and that it was not proved that Ku. Nivedita was the minor daughter of the late employee. It is further stated that the case had been created by using the same name as that of late Ashok Shamkuwar. Smt. Bebinanda had proposed that a DNA test of Ku.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

Nivedita be conducted.

vii) As regards the claim of Shri Sunil Shamkuwar, brother of the ex- employee, for 40% share of the NPS benefits, it is submitted that the same was examined in the light of Railway Board's instruction in this regard. It is stated that all settlement dues had been paid to Smt. Bebinanda, widow of late Ashok Shamkuwar, being legally wedded wife, in accordance with Railway Board instruction issued vide RBE No. 78/2017, circulated vide PCPO/SECR/BSP's Estt. Rule No. 126/2017. 3.7

It is further submitted that the pension/family pension sanctioned under CCS (Pension) Rules and CCS(EOP) Rules would also be applicable to the Government servants covered under the NPS who have been extended the benefits of Old Pension Scheme in respect of all terminal dues, in terms of O.M. dated 05th May, 2009. Accordingly, the family pension was paid to Smt. Bebinanda, widow of late employee, under Rule 75(19)b of Railway Services

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

(Pension) Rules, 1993. Therefore, according to the respondents, the claim of the applicant for grant of 50% family pension is not maintainable either on facts as well as in law. 3.8

In view of the submissions made in the forgoing paragraphs, the respondents contend that the applicant is not entitled to any of the relief prayed for. It is, therefore, submitted that the OA is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating and explaining the stand taken in the OA.

5. Respondent No.5 has also filed reply contending that she had no knowledge of the alleged marriage of her late husband, Ashok, with Smt. Vandana or of any child born out of such marriage during his lifetime. She states that she came to know about the alleged second marriage only after the applicant, through her mother, approached the official respondents for family pension.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

5.2 It is further contended that neither Respondent No.5 nor the official respondents had any information or knowledge about the alleged second marriage during the lifetime of late Ashok, as the name of Smt. Vandana was not included in the Pass/Medical Declaration Form. 5.3 It is further stated that neither Smt. Vandana nor the applicant availed of any Pass or medical facility, reimbursement of tuition fees, or any other facility available to the wards of Railway employees. It is also contended that the applicant did not approach the authorities immediately after the death of late Ashok on 29th March, 2021. As regards the grant of death benefits and employment assistance on compassionate grounds, it is submitted that the official respondents dealt with the matter in accordance with Railway Rules, as Respondent No.5 was the legal wife and legal heir of late Ashok as per the available documents and the statement of witnesses from his parent department.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

5.4 It is submitted that Respondent No. 5 did not receive any legal notice from the advocate for the applicant. It is further submitted that the official respondents dealt with the matter on the basis of the investigation report of the Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector. According to Respondent No.5, the applicant has not commented on the finding of the report that the actual husband of Smt. Vandana, who was also named by Ashok Shamkuwar, had died in a road accident sometime in 2014-2015. It is further submitted that Respondent No.5 had doubts regarding the applicant being the child of her late husband, Ashok, as he had certain medical issues relating to his to have a child and, consequently they remained childless. Respondent No.5 had, therefore, also suggested that a DNA test of the applicant be conducted. 5.5 Accordingly, Respondent No.5 has prayed for rejection of the reliefs sought by the applicant in the OA.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the official respondents and have perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

7. The applicant has claimed that she is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased employee, Shri Ashok Shamkuwar. It is an admitted fact that Shri Ashok Shamkuwar was married to Mrs. Bebinanda Ashok Shamkuwar. Mrs. Bebinanda has already been drawing family pension and has been allowed compassionate appointment. It is, however, claimed by the applicant that, despite not having legally severed ties with his first wife, Shri Ashok Shamkuwar married Vandana Shamkuwar. It is claimed that the applicant, being the child from second marriage, is a legitimate child, even though the second marriage is not recognized under the Hindu Marriage Act, and is, therefore, entitled to family pension benefits.

8. It has been argued that the pension can be divided in terms of Rule 50. It has also been argued that the official respondents, while rejecting her representation, did not consider public documents such as the birth certificate, Aadhaar card and school documents.

9. The respondents have submitted that Welfare Inspector was appointed to look into the matter after the Tribunal in OA

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

250/2024, directed them to dispose of the representation of the applicant by way of a speaking order. It is submitted that, on the basis of statements recorded by the Welfare Inspector from a friend of the deceased employee, neighbour of the alleged second wife, the statement of the purchaser of the house from the second wife, the brother of the deceased employee, and the first wife, respondents concluded that the applicant is not the daughter of the deceased employee and is, therefore, not entitled to pensionary benefits or monthly pension. The name of Mrs. Bebinanda was recorded in the Railway records for the purposes of pension and retiral benefits and, therefore, the same was disbursed to her.

10. The private respondents, Mrs. Bebinanda, submitted that there was no proof of marriage between the mother of the applicant and the late Railway employee. She has also relied upon the findings in the report of the Welfare Inspector. It was also submitted that no pass for medical facility pass or reimbursement of tuition fees, which was available to the wards of the Railway employee, had been availed

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

of in respect to the applicant. It was further submitted that the applicant did not approach the authorities immediately after the demise of the deceased employee. It was also submitted that her late husband, i.e., deceased employee, had certain medical issues due to which they remained childless and, therefore, it was not possible for the applicant to be the daughter of the deceased employee.

11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the pleadings on record.

12. The service records of the deceased employee do not mention the second marriage or the child from the second marriage. The service records show only the name of Mrs. Bebinanda as his wife. It is an admitted position that Mrs. Bebinanda was the first wife. From the report of the Welfare Inspector, the applicant’s status as the daughter of the deceased employee (late Ashok Shamkuwar) is doubted.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi

13. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision in Ravindra S/o Laxman Narete Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025(4) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 642, and argued that the public documents submitted by the applicant have to be admitted as facts in view of Section 35 and Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act. In response, the learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that the issue in that case related to POSCO and was with respect to the age of the person, wherein the birth certificate, being a public document, had been accepted. It was argued that the present matter pertains to paternity and needs to go before the civil courts for declaration.

14. Having gone through all the submissions, arguments and pleadings, I find that the very fact of the applicant being the child of the deceased employee is disputed. Unless this fact is established, no benefit can be allowed to the applicant. It would also not be correct to deny the applicant the benefit of pension solely on the ground that the facts are in dispute. It is also true that this dispute cannot be decided by this Tribunal. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things for the

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi issue of parentage to be decided by the competent court before the applicant’s claim of share of the pension or pensionary benefits of the deceased employee can be decided. Once the issue is decided by the Competent Authority, the applicant can approach the respondents, if deemed necessary.

15. The Original Application is, therefore, disposed of with the above observations. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava) Member (A) dm.

Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Deepti Ganesh Munarshi