Dismissed

Smt Kusuma Devi v. Ordnance Clothing Factory

CAT11 Sept 2026O.A./810/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed an application by a second wife seeking family pension. The Tribunal held that her marriage to the deceased employee occurred while he was legally married to his first wife, violating conduct rules and the Hindu Marriage Act, thus disqualifying her.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. The original application for family pension and set aside of the impugned order were dismissed.

Smt Kusuma Devi vs Ordnance Clothing Factory — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

O.A./810/2023

¶2

(Reserved on 09.09.2026)

¶3

**Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ******

¶4

Original Application No.810 of 2023

¶5

This the 11th Day of September, 2026.

¶6

Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

¶7

Smt. Kusuma Devi, widow of Chhote Lal, Resident of Mohalla Tulsi Nagar Colony, Baduzai 1st, District Shahjahanpur.

¶8

….Applicant

¶9

By Advocate: Mr. Mukti Nath Dwivedi

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Defense, New Delhi.

¶12

Ordinance Clothing Factory Shahjahanpur a unit of troop, Comforts Limited, Government of India Enterprises, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi through its General Manager, Shahjahanpur.

¶13

Chief Controller of Defense Account (Pension G-1 Civil Droupadi Ghat, Allahabad (Prayagraj).

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

By Advocate: Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.

¶18

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:–

¶19

“i. To, original application be allowed and SET-ASIDE the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 1 to this original application).

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 1 of 7

O.A./810/2023

ii. To, direct the respondents to pay the family pension with interest to the applicant.

¶24

iii To, issue or pass such other an further order which Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

iv. To award costs of the application in favour of the applicant.”

¶26

The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant, are that her husband, Late Sri Chhote Lal, was appointed on 03.08.1963 as a Skilled Tailor, bearing Ticket No. 11333/PW, in Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, under respondent No. 1. He was married to Smt. Urmila Devi in the year 1962. According to the applicant, during the subsistence of the said marriage, Smt. Urmila Devi left her matrimonial home and went with one Hardwari Lal. Consequently, Late Sri Chhote Lal instituted criminal proceedings against Smt. Urmila Devi and Sri Hardwari Lal under Sections 494/497 IPC, which were decided on 18.07.1973. The applicant claims that thereafter Late Sri Chhote Lal obtained divorce from Smt. Urmila Devi in accordance with the custom prevailing in their community and, after such divorce, married the applicant in the year 1974. According to the applicant, she is the legally wedded wife of Late Sri Chhote Lal and four sons and one daughter were born out of their wedlock. The applicant further claims that Late Sri Chhote Lal had informed the concerned department during his service that the name of Smt. Urmila Devi be deleted from his service records and that, due to a mistake on the part of the respondents, her name continued to remain in the official records. It is also pleaded that the applicant's name had been entered in the service records and that the names of the legal heirs of Late Sri Chhote Lal had also been brought on record. The applicant relies upon the ration card issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, wherein Late Sri Chhote Lal is shown as her husband, as well as the letter dated 02.09.2022 issued by respondent No. 3, wherein she was described as the widow of Late Sri Chhote Lal and claimant for family pension. Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for family pension, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 2 of 7

O.A./810/2023

In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that Late Sri Chhote Lal, T. No. 11333, was working as Tailor/HS in Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur and retired from service on 31.07.2003. His PPO was issued on 18.05.2003, wherein the name of the applicant, Smt. Kusuma Devi, was not mentioned as his wife. In the family pension nomination submitted by the deceased employee on 01.02.2003, Smt. Kusuma Devi was shown as his second wife. After the death of Late Sri Chhote Lal on 03.04.2016, the applicant submitted her claim for family pension and requested that her name be incorporated in the PPO. Upon examination of the claim and the documents submitted in support thereof, the status of the applicant's marriage with Late Sri Chhote Lal and that of his first wife, Smt. Urmila Devi, was found to require verification. An enquiry was accordingly conducted by the factory authorities. During the enquiry, different versions were furnished regarding the status of the first wife, including her alleged death and divorce. The documents placed on record were also examined. The applicant subsequently furnished an affidavit dated 26.11.2020 and other documents in support of her claim that her marriage with Late Sri Chhote Lal had taken place after the divorce of Smt. Urmila Devi. On consideration of the material available on record, it was found that the applicant's marriage with Late Sri Chhote Lal had taken place during the subsistence of his earlier marriage. The applicant's family pension claim was thereafter forwarded by the factory to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA), Allahabad. The claim was returned with objections and, upon re-examination, the PCDA, Allahabad, recorded that Smt. Kusuma Devi was the second wife of the deceased employee and that, in view of the applicable provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, a second wife whose marriage was solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage was not entitled to family pension. Consequently, the applicant was informed vide letter dated 30.11.2022 that further action on her pension claim was not possible. The subsequent representation dated 30.03.2023 was also disposed of vide letter dated 12.04.2023.

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 3 of 7

O.A./810/2023

The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the Original Application. It has been stated therein that the applicant is the second legally wedded wife of Late Sri Chhote Lal and is entitled to family pension after his death. It has also been stated that her name along with her date of birth ought to have been recorded in the PPO and that family pension was paid to her by the respondents up to July 2019. It has further been stated that no child was born out of the first marriage of Late Sri Chhote Lal and that the circumstances relating to his first wife had already been explained. According to the applicant, Late Sri Chhote Lal had divorced his first wife in 1972 in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community, as she had married another person. It has also been stated that the deceased employee had submitted the requisite family pension form in the year 2003.

¶35

A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, substantially reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that, after the death of Late Sri Chhote Lal, family pension could not be sanctioned as the name of the applicant was not mentioned in the PPO. During his lifetime, Late Sri Chhote Lal had submitted the family pension nomination form dated 01.02.2003. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a claim for sanction of family pension. After completion of the requisite formalities, her family pension case was forwarded to the PCDA, Allahabad, which was returned with the observation that Smt. Kusuma Devi was the second wife of Late Sri Chhote Lal and that her name had been mentioned in the family details by the deceased employee prior to the divorce of his first wife, Smt. Urmila Devi. It has also been stated that the marriage of Late Sri Chhote Lal with Smt. Kusuma Devi was solemnised on 04.06.1974, whereas the order of divorce between Late Sri Chhote Lal and his first wife, Smt. Urmila Devi, was passed on 08.09.2004. Accordingly, the marriage with Smt. Kusuma Devi was treated as having taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage and she was held not entitled to family pension under the applicable pension rules.

¶36

A supplementary rejoinder affidavit, in reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, has also been filed. The averments made in the

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 4 of 7

O.A./810/2023

Original Application and the rejoinder affidavit have been reiterated therein. It has been stated that the Union of India had already sanctioned family pension in favour of the applicant and that the same was also being paid to her. It has further been stated that the applicant is the legally wedded second wife of Late Sri Chhote Lal, having married him after the dissolution of his first marriage. The first wife had eloped with another person and did not return, whereafter the marriage was dissolved in accordance with the social custom prevailing at the relevant time.

¶41

Heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have perused the pleadings of both the sides.

¶42

The case of the applicant, who is the second wife of the deceased employee, is regarding grant of family pension to her, which has been denied by the respondents’ order dated 30.11.2022 and which the applicant wants to be set aside in the present OA.

¶43

The applicant’s husband joined service as a Tailor on 03.08.1963 and was married before joining Government service in 1962. Seemingly, his wife eloped sometime in 1972 and he got married again in 1974 (on 04.06.1974, as per the marriage certificate). However, this fact was never informed to the office till the time of his retirement. The employee retired on 31.07.2003 and, while preparing the pension papers, in the nomination form filled on 01.02.2003, indicated the name of the applicant as his second wife. PPO was issued to the pensioner; however, in the column of family pension, it was indicated—“not sanctioned, being a disputed case.” The employee was getting regular pension till his death on 03.04.2016, after which the pension was stopped as family pension had not been sanctioned. The second wife, who is the applicant in the present case, is before the Court now asking for family pension.

¶44

It is seen that the applicant, in her letter to the respondents dated 28.06.2019, said that the first wife had died 30 years before the retirement of the employee, but later on 25.11.2020, in an affidavit, said that she had informed about the death of the first wife by mistake. The

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 5 of 7

O.A./810/2023

divorce decree from the first wife submitted by the applicant is seen to be issued ex parte in Original Case No. 365/2003 dated 08.09.2004, which is well after the retirement of the applicant’s husband.

¶49

The CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, in the matter i.e the Rule 21, is quite clear and is reproduced below:

¶50

“21. RESTRICTION REGARDING MARRIAGE:

¶51

(1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and

¶52

(2) No Government servant having a spouse living, shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with any person:

¶53

Provided that the Central Government may permit a Government servant to enter into, or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2), if it is satisfied that -

¶54

(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and

¶55

(b) there are other grounds for doing so.

¶56

(3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than of Indian nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.”

¶57

The matter was further clarified by the Department of Pensions and Pensioner’s welfare vide their OM No. 1/1(33)/2024-P&PW€/9629 dt 27th Oct,2025 where it was said that:

¶58

“The position with reference to the legality of marriage / spouse was clarified. However, this Department still receives many references seeking clarification on these points. In order to avoid time in decision making, the rule position is re-iterated. Having second wife when the first wife is alive is against the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also contradictory to the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. For the administrative authority, it is very important to have application of mind while examining such cases and interpreting the Rules. For any disputes arising out of them, the replies / briefs for the tribunals / courts need to be suitably prepared in accordance with the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules and extant guidelines.”

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

Page 6 of 7

O.A./810/2023

Since the applicant’s husband was legally married to his first wife before taking the applicant as his second wife, he violated the provisions of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rule 1964. The divorce decree given ex parte with his first wife on 08.09.2004, almost thirty years after his second marriage has no meaning at this stage. Since the second marriage happened when the applicant’s husband was still legally married to his first wife, as per the Hindu Marriage Act also, the Applicant would not be recognised as a legally wedded wife and so would not be entitled to family pension as per rules.

¶63

In view of the discussions above, I find no merit in the Original Application and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶64

Accordingly, the instant Original Application is dismissed.

¶65

Any MAs pending are also dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶66

MS MANJU PANDEY MEMBER (A)

¶67

/Arpita/

¶68

ARPITA SRIVASTAV

¶69

Page 7 of 7

Smt Kusuma Devi v. Ordnance Clothing Factory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kusuma Devi v. Ordnance Clothing Factory

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary