Tej Prakash vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 6 November 2026

1. Union of India through its Chairman/Secretary, Ministry of Railway Board, New Delhi.

2. Joint Director Establishment (Eastern) Railway, New Delhi.

3. Senior Mandal Rail Prabhankhak (Karmik) Railway, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Rajendra Singh

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to pension, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(i) The applicant prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Opp. Party No. 3 in compliance to the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in O.A. No. 476 of 2022 Tej Prakash Vs. Union of India & Others.

(ii) It is further prayed to direct the Opp. Parties to register the name of the second wife of the petitioner namely Sangira in the Pension Payment Order. A copy of the impugned order dated 20.06.2024 is being filed herewith as Annexure No. 1 and a copy of the Pension Payment Order as Annexure No. 2 to this Original Application.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant retired from service on 31.07.2022. On the eve of his retirement, the applicant moved representation dated 28.07.2022 for recording of the name of his second wife, Sangeeta, in the Pension Payment Order (PPO). Having failed to elicit a response, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 476 of 2022 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 15.04.2024, directed respondent no. 3 to decide the applicant’s representation. The respondents rejected his representation vide order dated 20.06.2024. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant states that as his first wife was paralysed permanently, he entered into second marriage with Sangeeta, the younger sister of his first wife, which was registered in the office of Registrar, Hindu Marriages, Bahraich on 05.11.2014; that his second marriage had the consent of his first wife; and that his first wife died on 01.05.2021 leaving behind two children. He contends that there is no legal impediment to record the name of his second wife in his PPO.

4. The respondents contend that under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage cannot be validly solemnized during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage; that irrespective of the personal circumstances narrated by the applicant, the second marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first wife is void in the eyes of law ab initio and does not create legal status as wife for the purpose of service or pensionary benefits; that the registration of marriage cannot confer legality upon a marriage prohibited by law by overriding the mandatory provisions of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955; and that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority in accordance with law.

5. Heard both the parties. 6.1 It is noted that a similar controversy involving a Government employee who performed second marriage with the younger sister of his first wife during the first wife’s illness has been adjudicated in the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Madras vide the judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 in W.P. No. 32556 of 2014 Santhi vs Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors in the following terms: “10. … Thus the second marriage solemnized during the lifetime of the first wife is an invalid marriage and an invalid marriage would not provide the second wife status as “widow”. When she is not holding the status as 'widow', the family pension is not payable and consequently, the family pension cannot be shared or paid. …

13. That apart, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, in the case of Smt. Shamal Mahadeo Tate vs. District Collector, Solapur, Zilla Parishad Compound and others, reported in 2022 0 Supreme (Bom) 23, held as follows:- "12 . In our considered opinion, the substantial issue elucidated hereinabove stands squarely answered by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgements and the position of law in this regard stands more than well settled. 12.1 The Supreme Court, in Rameshwari Devi case (supra), has clearly opined that the putative second wife cannot be described as the widow of the deceased government employee. The Supreme Court applied the statutory provisions under Section 5

(i) read with Section 11 of the HMA and held that the marriage of the deceased employee to the putative second wife is void as, at the time of such marriage, his first wife was alive and his marriage with her was still subsisting. That being the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the second wife in such cases is not entitled to family pension. 12.2 The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumari vs. Krishna, 2015 (14) SCC 511 similarly opined that normally, family pension is given to the legally wedded wife of a deceased government employee. In the aforesaid case, the deceased government employee had married the plaintiff therein while the former's first wife was alive and his marriage with her was still subsisting. As such, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could by no stretch of imagination be described as the legally wedded wife of the deceased government employee. …

14. In view of the admitted fact in the present case that the writ petitioner married the deceased employee as second wife during the lifetime of the first wife, the order of rejection passed by the respondents is in consonance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules in force and there is no infirmity as such.” (emphasis supplied) In view of the above, the applicant’s second marriage cannot be considered to enjoy legal status and, therefore, the respondents’ refusal to record the putative second wife’s name in the PPO cannot be said to be suffering from illegality. 6.2 There is another aspect of the matter. The applicant’s two children have not been made party to this OA and so their right to lay claim on family pension cannot be determined in this lis. 6.3 It is also observed that it is open for the applicant and his putative second wife to approach the competent authority under relevant law for solemnizing their marriage as the applicant’s first wife is no more. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

Member (A)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.11.12 15:07:08 +05'30'