Claim for the Railway family pension as a second wife of ex pensioner Shri Bhika Budha Chaudhari
Hello Sir/Madam...
I, Smt. Arunabai Bhika Chaudhari, second wife of late Shri. Bhika Budha Chaudhari submitted the claim for the family pension in 2014 and in 2015.
My husband Late Shri Bhika Chaudhari was working in western railway as a Keyman and voluntary retired in year 2005.
My Claim details are as follows-
- My Husband – Late Shri. Bhika Budha Chaudhari
- First Wife – Smt. Nirmala
- Second wife – Smt. Arunabai (Me)
1.My husband (Bhika Budha Chaudhari) was working in western railway as key man. He was not getting children from first wife (Nirmala). Then with the consent of first wife Nirmala, Shri Bhika Chaudhari remarried to me (Arunabai) in 1985 and same was registered.
2.Late. Shri Bhika Chaudhari remarried to Arunabai (me) in 1985 while first marriage was not dissolved.
3.After second marriage Bhika Chaudhari got four children from me and then one son from first wife Nirmala. We all are living together till now with no disputes.
4.Shri Bhika Chaudhari retired in 2005 and was pensioner from 2005. In PPO the name of first wife Nirmala is exists.
5. Then first wife Nirmala was expired in 2011.
6. Shri. Bhika Chaudhari was also expired in 2012.
7.My husband Shri Bhika Chaudhari had never mentioned about his second marriage to railway authority and therefore name of first wife is existing in PPO.
8.I am having the documents which shows that I am the second wife of Shri Bhika Chaudhari such as, Marriage Certificate, Heirship Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Aadhar Card, Ration Card, Election Card, Bank Passbook and also Family ID card issued by railway authority in 2011 after the death of first wife Nirmala in which Shri Bhika Chaudhari mentioned me as a wife.
9. Now I have submitted application for getting family pension as a second wife of Bhika Chaudhari in 2014 and in 2015.
10.I got the reply from the railway authority that, Late Shri Bhika Chaudhari was never mentioned about his second marriage to railway during his lifetime. And in PPO also name of first wife Nirmala is existing. So you furnish if you are having any proof such as family ID issued by the railway authority to check genuiness of the case.
11.In this connection, I have submitted family ID card issued by railway in which Shri Bhika Chaudhari mentioned me (Arunabai) as a wife. But I am still waiting for their reply.
Related Judgments-
I read the news from TOI newspaper that illegal second wife is also eligible for getting family pension. If anybody has judgment regarding this so please give me.
News from TOI-
‘Illegal’ second wife, widow deserve equal share in pension: HC
Nagpur: Showing sympathy for second wife or widow, who was "illegally" married to the deceased, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has ruled that she deserves equal rights in pension with the first wife. While applauding Indian Railways for framing rules that grant equal share to all widows, the court went on to ask the centre and state why they should not adopt the same course of action.
"Railways must be complimented for making a provision for such widows, who unfortunately fall in the trap of males performing "illegal or void marriage" within the meaning of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The railways deserve applaud for incorporating such rule, which is seldom found in service/pension rules of many organizations and the governments," a division bench comprising justice Arun Chaudhari and justice Pukhraj Bora said.
Upholding an order of the Nagpur Circuit bench of Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT), providing equal pension to a second wife of a railway employee, the verdict authored by justice Chaudhari ruled that objective of Rule 75 of 'Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993', which deals with 'Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964', is nothing but to provide relief to such woman who is ensnared in void marriage.
"We find that such an unfortunate woman is provided minimum food and shelter, and that too, not at the cost of railways or the taxpayers, but the pension is equally divided among the widows by virtue of Rule 75. To repeat, provision of Rule 75 is a step in furtherance of the revolution for emancipation of women," the court said.
The South East Central Railway (SECR) had moved the court challenging CAT's January 28 decision to grant equal pension to widows of their employee on a plea filed by a Gondia-based second wife. The petitioner contended that the marriage of the second wife or widow was illegal and in violation of the Hindu Marriage Act, since first wife was not divorced.
The judges, while appreciating the petitioners' contention, said that they can't be oblivious of what is going on in society. "During subsistence of the first marriage, the husband performs the second by practicing fraud, indulging in cheating with the second woman who is easy prey. Such cases are myriad, but since the parties are Hindus, the Act holds such marriages void. Whether a second wife or widow, after the death of husband, should be left to starve by giving all the pensionary and terminal benefits to first wife only?" the court tersely asked.
The court added that the question will have to be answered with all seriousness and in the light of the revolution for emancipation of women. Quoting Rule 75, the court said, its provisions can't be held to be in conflict or interdiction with the Hindu Marriage Act.
"On the contrary, for achieving the constitutional goal, even for the unfortunate second wife or widow, Rule 75 provides for grant of pension to her for survival. By its virtue, the pension is required to be paid in equal share, which clearly shows that there is no burden on the treasury or the railways by inserting the noble idea. We, therefore, hold that Rule 75 has been enacted in consonance with the constitutional provision," the court ruled while dismissing the plea and asking the centre and states to adopt similar provisions for providing justice to second wives or widows.
HC bats for second wife’s rights, allows equal share of pension for 2 widows
{Times of India} Swati Deshpande, TNN | Dec 23, 2014, 03.50AM IST
MUMBAI: Two surviving widows of a railway employee are entitled to an equal share of the monthly pension, the Bombay HC held recently. It upheld an order by the central administrative tribunal to equally divide a railway employee's pension between his two widows based on railway pension rules, framed in a 1964 scheme that makes such provisions.
The high court rejected a plea by the South East Central Railway, Nagpur division, to quash the tribunal's order as being "flawed". The Hindu Marriage Act, enacted in 1955, doesn't recognise the second "wife" as legally wedded, when the first marriage still exists. "The tribunal was wrong in passing orders contrary to law," argued the railways' lawyer.
The Bombay high court commended the Indian Railways for a "progressive" pension rule that protects "unfortunate women ensnared into void marriages". The arguments made by the railway "do not appeal to us", said the HC. "We cannot be oblivious of what is going on in society," said the HC bench of Justices A B Chaudhari and P R Bora of the Nagpur bench while delivering the judgment last month. "Husbands fraudulently indulge in cheating the second woman, who falls easy prey to such a person for no fault of hers," the judges said.
The judgment may come to the aid of other "second wives''. The HC felt that other state and central government employers adopt the railway rules to provide relief to a woman whose marriage to a government servant is void under the Hindu Marriage Act. "While it's true that courts cannot pass or enforce orders contrary to law, the question is should a second widow be left to starve by handing all pensionary benefits only to the first?" the HC said. The railways have not contradicted the Hindu Marriage Act nor placed a burden on the railway or treasury either, said the HC, it however ensured that a woman "trapped by a man into an illegal marriage" is secured a livelihood for the rest of her life.
Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of s*x and Article 39 obligates states to promote laws meant to protect women's right, the HC said. "Indian Railways deserves an applause for incorporating a rule, seldom found in service rules of other government organisations, that provides for equal pension to more than one widow of an employee."
Finding no merit in the Railway petition, the HC dismissed it.
Can you give the above judgment.
Suggestions ……..
Contact-
Mr. Sandip Chaudhari
MO. 7588854395
Email: sbchaudhari88@gmail.com
