Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010260232023 2025:GAU-AS:1341 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6767/2023 BIVA RANI NAG W/O- LATE NANTU NAG, R/O- VILL.- DURGA PALLY, NEAR SILCHAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, GHUNGOON, P.O.- SILCHAR MEDICAL COLLEGE, P.S- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788014. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, RAILWAY DEPARTMENT, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN RAILWAYS NEW DELHI PIN- 110001. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION MALIGAON Page No.# 2/5 GUWAHATI-11. 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION-II GM CONSTRUCTION N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11. 5:THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CON)/II N.F. RAILWAY TINSUKIA PIN- 786125. 6:THE FA AND CAO (PENSION) N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11. 7:THE SR. AFA/ PENSION N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11. 8:PUSPA NAG W/O- LATE NANTU NAG R/O KAMESWAR W/NO-02 P.O. AND P.S.- DHARMANAGAR NORTH TRIPURA PIN-799250 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., C.G.C.,MR. D J DAS (R-1 TO R-7) BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R 06.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 3/5 Mr. DJ Das, learned CGC. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, whose husband served as MV Driver under the respondent railways. He superannuated from the service on 31.05.2019 and he was paid regular pension during his life time. He expired on 01.02.2022. Thereafter, no family pension has been paid to the family members of the said deceased Govt. Employee as there are two claimants for such pension. The first one is the present petitioner, who claims to be legally married wife and the other claimant is one Pankaj Nath, whose name is incorporated as beneficiary in the pension papers declared by the deceased employee. The mother of said Pankaj Nath is one Puspa Nath, who is respondent No. 8. The respondent No. 8 is not before this court though notices were deemed to be served upon her. 3. The railways admits the present petitioner to be the first wife of the decease, however according to them, Pankaj Nath is also entitled for family pension by virtue of OM No. 1/16/1996-P&PW(E)(vol.II) dated 27.11.2012 being the illegitimate child fathered by the deceased Railway servant through the respondent No. 8. Accordingly, there being two claimants railways, has not paid family pension to the family of the deceased employee on his death i.e. since 01.02.2022. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The petitioner claims the entire pensionary benefits being the first legally married wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to an order of the railways authority (Annexure 8 Colly) dated 26.09.2001 argues that the railway had already accepted the petitioner to be legally married wife and during the life time of her husband, she was also paid maintenance by the railway authorities directly from the salary of the Page No.# 4/5 deceased employee in terms of an order passed by a competent court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. The O.M. No. 1/16/1996-P&PW(E)(vol.II) dated 27.11.2012 deals with eligibility of children from a void or voidable marriage for family pension and it is an clarificatory Office Memorandum. In terms of the aforesaid Memorandum, a children from illegally wedded wife shall have share in the family pension and same shall be payable to such children from illegally wedded wife in the manner given under Sub-rule 7(c) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 along with the legally wedded wife. The aforesaid OM further prescribes that, if already some amount has been paid, no recovery from previous beneficiary should not be made. Such prescription is not necessary for determination of the present case inasmuch as it is an admitted position by the railways that after death of the pensioner, no pension has been paid either to the legally married wife or to the illegitimate child. 6. The railways cannot keep the matter pending in view of the clarification issued by way of the OM No. 1/16/1996-P&PW(E)(vol.II) dated 27.11.2012. 7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the railway authorities to consider the claim of pensionary benefit in terms of the OM No. 1/16/1996-P&PW(E)(vol.II) dated 27.11.2012 taking not of the claim of the petitioner being the first wife as well as the claim of said Pankaj Nath, who admittedly had attained majority by now. His case may be considered for share of pension during his minority only, in terms of extant Pension Rules and after such determination, the family pension be paid accordingly. The entire exercise should be carried out within a period of Page No.# 5/5 one month. JUDGE Comparing Assistant