ups_00484 — The Applicant, second wife of late employee who applied for family pension especially, when the first wife of the ex-employee had died already way back in 1992, is eligible to share the family pension of her late husband, arrears of family pension as per her share, with interest on arrears in accordance with law

The Applicant, second wife of late employee who applied for family pension especially, when the first wife of the ex-employee had died already way back in 1992, is eligible to share the family pension of her late husband, arrears of family pension as per her share, with interest on arrears in accordance with law — This chunk discusses a case involving a second wife of a late employee who applied for family pension, specifically referring to her eligibility to share the family pension of her late husband and th... — Facts: This single Bench case is allowed in terms of Appendix VIII of Rule 154 of CAT Rules Practice as no complicated question of law is involved and with the consent of both sides. The Applicant is the second wife of the late retired employee who retired on 31-12-1998 and died on 23-3-2011. The first wife of her late husband also died on 14-9-1992 leaving behind two sons and a daughter. On 7-11-2000, the nomination of his retiral benefits was changed to his second wife. As per Rule 54 (7)

(a)

(ii) of CCS ( Pension) Rules, the family pension of a deceased wife becomes payable to her eligible child, provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of family pension shall not lapse but payable to the other widows in equal shares or if there is one such other widow, in full to her. Hence it is contended in this case that where the first wife expired in 1992 and during the lifetime of the first wife, the employee had married the Applicant on 5-11-1988 under his personal (Muslim personal law) and therefore, the Applicant is the sole surviving legal wife. The question that arises is, "whether having failed to dismiss the employee on the ground of bigamy having failed to declare the marriage of the second wife as null and void when such marriage was not prohibited under the Personal Law governing the employee, the authorities could not deny family pension and other benefits of the employee to the second wife in absence of any rival claimants thereto when as enumerated in this case, it has been consistently held that co-habitation for years together and presence of contemporaneous documents of proof of marriage and parentage of issues would raise a presumption of valid marriage". To examine this case, similar case of Smt. Parameshwaribai v. Muthojirao Scindia [AIR 1981 Kant 40 ] was noted and it was observed in that case. "When there is a cohabitation of a man and a woman as husband and wife, a presumption arises to the effect that there was a valid marriage between the parties. In Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Supreme Court held that where a man and a woman live as husband and wife for about 50 years, a strong presumption arises in favour of their wedlock. "The law in its wisdom has laid this presumption, if a man and a woman live as husband and wife for a pretty long time and the husband acknowledges his woman as his wife, a presumption can be raised in favour of the legality of their marriage". Similar views had also been expressed in other cases quoted in the judgment. Taking note of the discussion it was held: