Disposed

Union of India General Manager Nothern Railway New Delhi and 3 Others v. Sarita Devi and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2025WRIA/7215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Railway administration challenged a Tribunal order directing family pension to the deceased employee's second wife under Rule 7(i)(a), contending the rule applies only where a second marriage was legally permissible, which it was not for a Hindu with a subsisting first marriage already drawing pension to the first wife. The High Court found a prima facie case and stayed the Tribunal judgment.

What did the court decide?

Operation of the CAT judgment dated in OA No. 332/00324 of 2022 stayed; matter listed after six weeks.

Union of India General Manager Nothern… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7215 of 2024

¶3

Union Of India General Manager Nothern Railway New Delhi And 3 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Sarita Devi And Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Deepanshu Dass : Balak Ram, Anil Srivastava, Rajat Vineet Kumar Ve	Mishra, Arun Kumar Raj Narayan Bajpai, rma

¶6

Court No. - 1

¶7

HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶8

1. Heard Shri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶9

2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deceased is a Hindu, therefore, it was impermissible for him to marry for the second time during subsistence of first marriage. There were two ladies claiming to be his wife. The petitioners were already giving pension to the first wife- Gujrati Devi. The second wife Sarita Devi filed the Original Application bearing No. 332/00324 of 2022 which has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and based on Rule 7(i)(a) of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1964) a direction has been issued to pay pension to the second wife - Sarita Devi also. The contention is that Rule 7(i)(a) of the Rules, 1964 applies where the deceased was entitled as per law to marry twice or to have more than one wife or to marry for the second time during subsistence of first marriage. It did not apply to a person who was forbidden from marrying second time during subsistence of the first marriage. The Tribunal has misread the Rule and incorrectly applied it to the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered on 03.01.2025 in Writ - A No. 12938 of 2024; Smt. Pin Maya Kumal V.s Government

¶10

WRIA No. 7215 of 2024

¶11

¶12

of India and Ors. in support of his contention.

¶13

3. Prima facie, we find merit in the contention of the petitioner's counsel.

¶14

4. When we confronted the learned counsel for the opposite party who has filed Original Application, he could not satisfy us to the contrary. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is hereby stayed.

¶15

5. List after six weeks.

¶16

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶17

September 16, 2025 R.K.P.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India General Manager Nothern Railway New Delhi and 3 Others v. Sarita Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India General Manager Nothern Railway New Delhi and 3 Others v. Sarita Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Excella Premio Infra LLP Lko. Thru. Director Mr. Kishori Lal Goel and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs NO.215001-R Govind Singh, Lem (P) Retd. and Another

U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. and 3 Ors. vs No. 41981834H Ex Sep (Acp Ii) Bharat Chand

Amit Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Lko and 4 Others

Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. India Ministry Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs No 6936873X Ex Hav Manoj Kumar Sharma

Manju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 4 Others