# Smt. Pin Maya Kumal v. Govt. of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 792
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-03
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 12938 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-pin-maya-kumal-v-govt-of-india-ors-53096
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Pension - Defence
Service Regulation: Regulation 333; Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Second marriage can
be
contracted
only
in
certain
circumstances and that too after obtaining
sanction from the competent authority
and any violation of this provision may
attract
termination
of
service
of
concerned employee. (Para 16)

In the present case, Late Tek Bahadur Thapa
was a Nepalese Gorkha and as per Regulation
333 quoted above, he could have remarried in
the following circumstances: -
(i) When the wife suffers from incurable insanity
(madness),
(ii) When there is no birth till ten years of
marriage,
(iii) When the wife is paralysed and cannot
move,
(iv) When the wife becomes blind of both the
eyes.
(v) When the wife is suffering from an infectious
incurable sexually transmitted disease. (Para 7)

Late
Tek
Bahadur
Thapa
had
four
daughters and a son from his first
marriage and it is nobody's case that his
first wife Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal suffered
from any disease/infirmity mentioned in
Regulation
333(B)(a)
of
Army
Regulations. Sri Tek Bahadur Thapa did not
apply for sanction to contract plural marriages
on any of the grounds mentioned in Regulation
333(B)(b). Service of the person who has
contracted
plural
marriages
without
obtaining sanction from the competent
authority can be terminated under the
provisions
contained
in
Regulation
333(B)(g) of Army Regulations, but the fact
of Late Tek Bahadur Thapa having entered into
plural marriages was not brought to the notice
of the authorities during his service period or
even thereafter during his life time. Therefore,
no administrative action for termination of his
service was taken. (Para 6, 8)

B. The petitioner could not point out any
provision
of
law
under
which
this
marriage
(1st
marriage)
was
void.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the
marriage of late Tek Bahadur Thapa with
Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal was void. (Para 14)

C. The submission that the petitioner is an
illiterate
person
and
she
was
not
responsible for proper upkeep of the
service records of her deceased husband
and it was for the authorities to correctly
maintain the service records of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa and record the name of
the petitioner therein as wife, does not
hold any force as information about family
members/dependents is given to the
authorities
by
the
concerned
employee/officer himself. (Para 15)

The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the
original application filed by the petitioner on the
1 All. Smt. Pin Maya Kumal Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.
793
ground that her name is not recorded in the
service record of the deceased soldier. (Para 9)

Late Tek Bahadur Thapa had mentioned the
name of Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal as his wife and
it is admitted by the petitioner that Smt. Dalli
Maya Kumal was in fact the wife of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa. The petitioner's marriage with
late Tek Bahadur Thapa was in contravention of
the provisions of Regulation 333 and it would
not confer any right on the petitioner so far as
any benefits relation to or arising out of services
rendered by late Tek Bahadur Thapa is
concerned. (Para 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

## Text

792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Original Application No.
332/00365 of 2023 and to permit fresh
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
opposite party no. 2, although for reasons
different from the reason mentioned by the
tribunal in the impugned order.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed. Costs made easy.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 792
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -A No. 12938 of 2024

Smt. Pin Maya Kumal ...Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A. Service Law - Pension - Defence
Service Regulation: Regulation 333; Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Second marriage can
be
contracted
only
in
certain
circumstances and that too after obtaining
sanction from the competent authority
and any violation of this provision may
attract
termination
of
service
of
concerned employee. (Para 16)

In the present case, Late Tek Bahadur Thapa
was a Nepalese Gorkha and as per Regulation
333 quoted above, he could have remarried in
the following circumstances: -
(i) When the wife suffers from incurable insanity
(madness),
(ii) When there is no birth till ten years of
marriage,
(iii) When the wife is paralysed and cannot
move,
(iv) When the wife becomes blind of both the
eyes.
(v) When the wife is suffering from an infectious
incurable sexually transmitted disease. (Para 7)

Late
Tek
Bahadur
Thapa
had
four
daughters and a son from his first
marriage and it is nobody's case that his
first wife Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal suffered
from any disease/infirmity mentioned in
Regulation
333(B)(a)
of
Army
Regulations. Sri Tek Bahadur Thapa did not
apply for sanction to contract plural marriages
on any of the grounds mentioned in Regulation
333(B)(b). Service of the person who has
contracted
plural
marriages
without
obtaining sanction from the competent
authority can be terminated under the
provisions
contained
in
Regulation
333(B)(g) of Army Regulations, but the fact
of Late Tek Bahadur Thapa having entered into
plural marriages was not brought to the notice
of the authorities during his service period or
even thereafter during his life time. Therefore,
no administrative action for termination of his
service was taken. (Para 6, 8)

B. The petitioner could not point out any
provision
of
law
under
which
this
marriage
(1st
marriage)
was
void.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the
marriage of late Tek Bahadur Thapa with
Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal was void. (Para 14)

C. The submission that the petitioner is an
illiterate
person
and
she
was
not
responsible for proper upkeep of the
service records of her deceased husband
and it was for the authorities to correctly
maintain the service records of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa and record the name of
the petitioner therein as wife, does not
hold any force as information about family
members/dependents is given to the
authorities
by
the
concerned
employee/officer himself. (Para 15)

The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the
original application filed by the petitioner on the
1 All. Smt. Pin Maya Kumal Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.
793
ground that her name is not recorded in the
service record of the deceased soldier. (Para 9)

Late Tek Bahadur Thapa had mentioned the
name of Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal as his wife and
it is admitted by the petitioner that Smt. Dalli
Maya Kumal was in fact the wife of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa. The petitioner's marriage with
late Tek Bahadur Thapa was in contravention of
the provisions of Regulation 333 and it would
not confer any right on the petitioner so far as
any benefits relation to or arising out of services
rendered by late Tek Bahadur Thapa is
concerned. (Para 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Vidhyadhari Vs Sukhrana Bai, (2008) 2 SCC
238 (Para 17)

2. Tulsa Devi Nirola Vs Radha Nirola, 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 283 (Para 17)

3. Rameshwari Devi Vs St. of Bihar, (2000) 2
SCC 431 (Para 18)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi J. & Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
S.B.
Pandey,
the
learned
Senior
Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, the learned
counsel for the opposite parties and perused
the material available on record.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs: -

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari
for quashing of impugned orders
dated 20.11.2023 and 08 April
2024 passed by Armed Forces
Tribunal (RB), Lucknow annexed
as Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively
to this petition and thereby grant
her
entitled
Ordinary
Family
Pension w.e.f. 14 Jul 2016 i.e.,
pursuant to death of her husband
on 13 Jul 2016.
(ii) Issue/pass an order or
direction of appropriate nature to
summon and quash/set aside orders
leading to denial of petitioner's
ordinary
family
pension
w.e.f.
14.07.2016 i.e., after her husband's
death on 13.07.2016.
(iii) Issue/pass an order or
direction of appropriate nature to
opposite parties to grant ordinary
family pension, LTA and ensuing
benefits to the petitioner w.e.f
14.07.2016,
i.e.,
after
her
husband's death on 13 Jul.2016.
(iv) Issue a writ, order of
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
respondent to pay the arrears of all
dues and arrears of ordinary family
pension from the due date till
actual disbursement of aforesaid
arrear along with the interest of
12% per annum.
(v) Issue a writ, order of
direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case
in favour of the petitioner in the
interest of justice.
(vi) Allow the writ petition
with cost."

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the
case as pleaded on behalf of the petitioner
are that the petitioner is the second wife of
late Subedar Tek Bahadur Thapa (a Gorkha
from Nepal). Late Tek Bahadur Thapa was
enrolled in the Indian Army on 28.11.1961
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and he was discharged from service with
effect from 30.11.1989. He was paid
pension till his death on 13.07.2016. The
petitioner claims that she got married to
late Tek Bahadur Thapa on 06.03.1969.
After her marriage, the petitioner learnt that
her husband was already married to Smt.
Dalli Maya Kumal on 07.02.1953 and he
had four daughters and a son out of that
wedlock. At the time of death of Tek
Bahadur Thapa, all five children from his
first wife were above 25 years of age and
married and they were not entitled to claim
family pension. In the service record of late
Tek Bahadur Thapa, the name of his wife is
mentioned as Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal, but
the photograph affixed shows the petitioner
as wife of Late Tek Bahadur Thapa.

4. The petitioner made a claim for
payment of family pension which was
denied on the ground that her name was not
entered in the service documents of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa and also that late Tek
Bahadur Thapa had married Smt. Dalli
Maya Kumal prior to marrying the
petitioner and thus he had married plural
times without obtaining sanction from the
competent authority.

5. Aggrieved against the denial of
her claim, the petitioner filed Original
Application No.989 of 2022 before the
Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench,
Lucknow, which has been dismissed by
means of a judgment and order dated
20.11.2023, which order has been assailed
by means of the instant writ petition.

6. The Armed Forces Tribunal
found that Late Tek Bahadur Thapa had
married the petitioner during subsistence of
his first marriage with Smt. Dalli Maya
Kumal without taking permission from the
competent authority and as per Regulation
333 of Defense Service Regulations, his
second marriage with the petitioner was
void. Regulation 333 of the aforesaid
Regulations provide as follows: -

"333.
PLURAL
Marriages.-
(A)
The
Special
Marriage Act 1954 and Hindu
Marriage Act 1955 lay down the
rule of 'Monogamy' that is, neither
party has a spouse living at the
time of marriage, these Acts also
provide for decrees, of nullity of
marriage, restitution of conjugal
rights, judicial separation and
divorce
and
also
orders
for
alimony, and custody of children.
The Hindu Marriage Act applies to
all Hindus, Budhists, Jains and
Sikhs and also applies to all other
persons (with certain exceptions),
who are not Muslims, Christians,
Parsis
or
Jews
by
religion.
Christians, Parsis and Jews are
also
prostituted
under
their
respective
personal
laws
from
contracting a plural marriage.
Thus
no
person
who
has
solemnised or registered his/her
marriage
under
the
Special
Marriage
Act
or
who
is
a
Christian, Parsi or Jew or to whom
the Hindu Marriage Act 1955
applies, can now remarry during
the life time of his or her, wife or
husband. Sub-para (C) (a) to (c)
below apply to such persons only. A
Muslim or such other person to
whom the Hindu Marriage Act does
not apply and whose personal law
does not prohibit Polygamy or
Polyandry can marry during the
life time of his or her, wife or
husband and sub-para (B) (a) to (h)
below apply to such persons only.
1 All. Smt. Pin Maya Kumal Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.
795
(B) Plural Marriage by
persons in whose case it is
permissible: -
(a) No person subject to the
Army Act except Gorkha personnel
of Nepalese domicile can marry
again within the life time of his wife
without prior sanction of the
Government, The circumstances
under
which
such
Gorkha
personnel can contract a plural
marriage are :-
(i) When the wife suffers
from incurable insanity (madness),
(ii) When there is no birth
till ten years of marriage,
(iii) When the wife is
paralysed and cannot move,
(iv) When the wife becomes
blind of both the eyes.
(v)
When
the
wife
is
suffering
from
an
infectious
incurable
sexually
transmitted
disease.
(b) An individual may,
during the life time of his wife
apply for sanction to contract a
plural marriage on any one or
more of the following grounds :-
(i) his wife has deserted
him and there is sufficient proof of
such desertion;
(ii) his wife has been
medically certified as being insane;
(iii) infidelity of the wife
has been proved before a court of
law; and
(iv)
any
other
special
circumstances which in the opinion
of
the
brigade
or
equivalent
commander
would
justify
contracting a plural marriage.
(c) Applications will state
the law under which the subsisting
marriage
was
solemnised,
registered or performed and will
include the following details where
applicable :-
(i) Whether the previous
wife will continue to live with the
husband;
(ii) if the previous wife does
not propose to live with the
husband,
what
maintenance
allowance is proposed to be paid
and in what manner; and
(iii) name, age and sex of
each child by previous marriage
and
maintenance
allowance
proposed for each in case any such
child is to live in the custody of the
mother. In all the cases, the
applicant will render a certificate
to the effect that he is not a
Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion,
that he had not solemnised or
registered his previous marriage
under the Special Marriage Act
1954 and that the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955 is not applicable to him.
(d) Applications will be
forwarded
through
normal
channels and each intermediate
commander
will
endorse
his
specific recommendations. Such
recommendations will be signed by
the commander himself or be
personally approved by him. Before
making his recommendations a
commander will satisfy himself that
the reasons given for the proposed
plural marriage are fully supported
by adequate evidence.
(e) An individual whose
marriage is alleged to have been
dissolved
according
to
any
customary or personal law but not
by a judicial decree will report,
immediately after the divorce, the
full circumstances leading to and
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
culminating in dissolution of the
marriage together with a valid
proof of the existence of the alleged
custom or personal law. The
existence and validity of the alleged
custom
or
personal
law,
if
considered necessary, will be got
verified from civil authorities and if
it
is
confirmed
by
the
civil
authorities action will be taken to
publish casualty for the dissolution
of the marriage. The individual
thereafter will not be required to
obtain sanction for contracting the
second marriage.
(f) An application which is
not
recommended
by
the
Commanding
Officer
and
an
authority superior to him need not
be sent to Army Head quarters, but
may be rejected by the GOC-in-C
of the Command concerned.
(g) Cases where it is found
that an individual has contracted
plural marriage without obtaining
prior Government sanction as
required in clause (a) above will
be dealt with as under :-
(i) Cases of officers will be
reported through normal channels
to Army Headquarters (AG/DV-2)
with the recommendations as to
whether
ex-post-facto
sanction
should
be
obtained
or
administrative action should taken
against the individual.
(ii) Cases of JCOs and OR
will be submitted to the GOC-in-C
Command
who
will
decide
whether
ex-post-facto
sanction
should
be
obtained
or
administrative action should be
taken against the individual. In
cases, where it is decided that
administrative action should be
taken against the individual, his
service will be terminated under
orders of the competent, authority.
When reporting cases to higher
authorities,
intermediate
commanders will endorse their
specific
recommendations
with
reasons
thereof.
Here
too
recommendations will be signed by
the Commanders themselves or be
personally approved by them. Also,
an opportunity to 'show cause'
against the order of termination of
service will always be given to the
individual concerned.
(h) In no circumstances
will disciplinary action by way of
trial by Court Martial or Summary
disposal be taken against an
individual who is found to have
contravened
the
provisions
of
clause (a) above. If, however, the
individual is also found to have
committed
another
offence
connected
with
his
act
of
contracting a plural marriage,
disciplinary
action
for
the
connected offence may be taken
and progressed in the normal
manner.
(C) Plural Marriage by
persons in whose case it is not
permissible-
(a) An individual whose
marriage is alleged to have been
dissolved
according
to
any
recognised
custom
or
special
enactment under the provisions of
Sec 20(2), read with Sec 3 (a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, but not by a
judicial
decree
will
report
immediately after the divorce, the
full circumstances leading to and
culminating
in
dissolution
of
marriage together with a valid
1 All. Smt. Pin Maya Kumal Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.
797
proof of the existence of the alleged
recognised
custom
or
special
enactment.
The
existence
and
validity of the alleged custom or
special enactment will be got
verified from civil authorities and if
it
is
confirmed
by
the
civil
authorities that the divorce is valid,
action will be taken to publish the
casualty for the dissolution of the
marriage. The individual thereafter
will not be required to obtain
sanction for contracting the second
marriage.
(b)
A
plural
marriage
solemnised,
contracted
or
performed by any such person is
null and void and may, on a
petition presented to a court of law
by either party thereto, be so
declared by a decree of nullity. Not
only is the plural marriage void but
the offence of bigamy is also
committed.
This
offence
is,
however,
triable
only
on
a
complaint
made
to
the
civil
authority by an aggrieved party.
The punishment for the offence of a
bigamy is prescribed in Sections
494 and 495 of the Indian Penal
Code,
(c) When it is found, on
receipt of a complaint from any
source whatsoever, that any such
person
has
gone
through
a
ceremony of plural marriage, no
disciplinary action by way of trial
by Court Martial or Summary
disposal will be taken against him,
but
administrative
action
to
terminate his service will be
initiated and the case reported to
higher authorities in the manner
laid down in sub-para (B) (g)
above. In cases where cognisance
has been taken by civil court of
competent jurisdiction the matter
should be treated as sub judice and
the decision of the court awaited
before taking any action. When a
person has been convicted of the
offence of bigamy or where his
marriage has been declared void by
a decree of court on grounds of
plural marriage, action will be
taken to terminate his service under
AA Section 19 read with Army Rule
14 or AA Section 20 read with
Army Rule 17 as the case may be.
No ex-post-facto sanction can be
accorded as such marriages are
contrary to the law of the land."
(Emphasis added)

7. Late Tek Bahadur Thapa was a
Nepalese Gorkha and as per Regulation
333 quoted above, he could have remarried
in the following circumstances: -

(i) When the wife suffers
from incurable insanity (madness),
(ii) When there is no birth
till ten years of marriage,
(iii) When the wife is
paralysed and cannot move,
(iv)
When
the
wife
becomes blind of both the eyes.
(v) When the wife is
suffering
from
an
infectious
incurable
sexually
transmitted
disease.

8. There is no allegation that any
of
the
aforesaid
five
circumstances
justifying the second marriage of Late Tek
Bahadur Thapa with the petitioner. Late
Tek Bahadur Thapa had four daughters and
a son from his first marriage and it is
nobody's case that his first wife Smt. Dalli
Maya
Kumal
suffered
from
any
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disease/infirmity mentioned in Regulation
333 (B) (a) of Army Regulations. Sri Tek
Bahadur Thapa did not apply for sanction
to contract plural marriages on any of the
grounds mentioned in Regulation 333 (B)
(b). Service of the person who has
contracted
plural
marriages
without
obtaining sanction from the competent
authority can be terminated under the
provisions contained in Regulation 333 (B)
(g) of Army Regulations, but the fact of
Late Tek Bahadur Thapa having entered
into plural marriages was not brought to the
notice of the authorities during his service
period or even thereafter during his life
time. Therefore, no administrative action
for termination of his service was taken.

9. Late Tek Bahadur Thapa did not
get the name of the petitioner entered in the
service records as his wife. The Armed
Forces Tribunal dismissed the original
application filed by the petitioner on the
ground that her name is not recorded in the
service record of the deceased soldier.

10. The petitioner has not come
forward to put her signatures on the writ
petition or the affidavit filed in its support
and the same have been signed and verified
by one Prem Bahadur who is said to be a
cousin of late Tek Bahadur Thapa.

11. A certificate issued by Bhanu
Municipality, 4 No. Ward Office, Tanahun,
Gandaki Province, Nepal has been annexed
with the writ petition wherein it has been
certified that late Tek Bahadur Thapa had
two wives, first wife being Mrs. Dalli and
the second wife being Mrs. Pin Maya
Kumal (the petitioner). The first wife Mrs.
Dalli died on 15.03.2019. Late Tek
Bahadur Thapa had five children from his
first wife and he had three children from
his second wife (the petitioner), the
youngest of whom was born on 16.05.1990.

12. Assailing the legality of
rejection of the petitioner's claim for
payment of family pension, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
as per information available on record, Tek
Bahadur Thapa was aged 11 years and Dalli
Maya Kumal was aged 12 years at the time
of their marriage and they were not of
marriageable age. Therefore, the first
marriage of late Tek Bahadur Thapa with
Dalli Maya Kumar was void and the
petitioner was the only legally wedded wife
of Tak Bahadur Thapa.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner is
a Nepalese citizen and late Tek Bahadur
Thapa and his first wife Smt. Dalli Maya
Kumal were also Nepalese citizens.
Their marriage was solemnized on
07.02.1953.

14. The provisions of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 extend to the whole of
India and this Act does not extend to Nepal.
Even this Act which was enacted in the
year 1955 was not in existence at the time
of marriage of Sri Tek Bahadur Thapa on
07.02.1953. Moreover, even the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 does not provide that
marriage of a person who has not
completed the age of 21 years for the
bridegroom and 18 years for the bride as
mentioned in Section 5 (iii) of the Act,
would be void. The learned counsel for the
petitioner could not point out any provision
of law under which this marriage was void.
Therefore, we are unable to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the marriage of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa with Smt. Dalli Maya
Kumal was void.
1 All. Smt. Pin Maya Kumal Vs. Govt. of India & Ors.
799
15. The second submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner is an illiterate person and she was
not responsible for proper upkeep of the
service records of her deceased husband. It
was for the authorities to correctly maintain
the service records of late Tek Bahadur
Thapa and record the name of the petitioner
therein as wife.

16. We do not find force in the
second submission also as information
about family members/dependents is given
to the authorities by the concerned
employee/officer
himself.
Late
Tek
Bahadur Thapa had mentioned the name of
Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal as his wife and it is
admitted by the petitioner that Smt. Dalli
Maya Kumal was in fact the wife of late
Tek
Bahadur
Thapa.
The
provisions
contained in Regulation 333 of Army
Regulations quoted above clearly provide
that second marriage can be contracted
only in certain circumstances and that too
after obtaining sanction from the competent
authority
and
any
violation of
this
provision may attract termination of service
of concerned employee. Admittedly, Late
Tek Bahadur Thapa had not obtained any
sanction from the competent authority for
marrying the petitioner during subsistence
of his first marriage with Smt. Dalli Maya
Kumal. Therefore, the petitioner's marriage
with late Tek Bahadur Thapa was in
contravention
of
the
provisions
of
Regulation 333 mentioned above and it
would not confer any right on the petitioner
so for as any benefits relation to or arising
out of services rendered by late Tek
Bahadur Thapa is concerned.

17. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner lastly submitted that even if the
marriage of the petitioner was not legal, she
lived with Late Tek Bahadur Thapa as his
wife and she is entitled to receive
pensionary benefits in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai: (2008) 2
SCC 238 and Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha
Nirola: 2020 SCC OnLine SC 283.

18. Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai
(Supra) was a case arising out of a claim of
the second wife for grant of a succession
certificate and the question of effect of
Regulation 333 of the Army Regulations
was not involved therein. Even in that case,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed an
earlier decision in the case of Rameshwari
Devi v. State of Bihar: (2000) 2 SCC 431,
wherein it was held that even if a
government servant had contracted second
marriage during the subsistence of his first
marriage, children born out of such second
marriage would still be legitimate though
the second marriage itself would be void.
The Court held that such children would be
entitled to the pension but not the second
wife.

19. In Tulsa Devi Nirola v. Radha
Nirola
(Supra)
the
deceased
had
solemnized his second marriage with
respondent no. 1 on 09.05.1987, while the
Hindu Marriage Act had not been brought
into force in the State of Sikkim. Rule 27 of
1963 Rules reads as follows: -

"27. Nothing contained in
this Rule shall effect the validity of
any marriage not solemnized under
its provisions; nor shall this Rule
be, deemed directly or indirectly to
affect the validity of any mode of
contracting marriage."

No material was placed by
the appellants that the second
marriage was solemnized under
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1963 Rules, and therefore, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it
does not invalidate the second
marriage of the deceased with
respondent no. 1. The deceased had
executed a settlement deed between
his two wives, both with regard to
his
movable
and
immovable
properties. Having accepted and
acted upon the deed it was not open
to the appellant no. 1 to now
renegade from the same. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further
held that: -

"9.
Family
pension
undoubtedly is not part of the estate
of the deceased and will be
regulated by the Pension Rules
which confer a statuary right in the
beneficiary eligible to the same."

20. The cases relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner do not
apply to the facts of the present case and
the same do not deal with the effect of
Regulation 333 of the Army Regulations.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we do not find any illegality in
the order rejecting the claim of payment of
family pension to the petitioner. The writ
petition lacks merit and the same is
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 800
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 17483 of 2024

Ashish Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nikhil Kumar, Vagish Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mritunjay Mohan Sahai, S.M. Mishra

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
Rules,
1974
-
The
concept
of
compassionate
ground
appointments is a welfare measure taken
by
a
model
employer.
However,
an
unjustified
generous
approach
in
compassionate
ground
which
is
not
consistent with the applicable service
rules will confer benefit to underserving
and
ineligible
candidates,
and
simultaneously deny the rights and lawful
claims
of
eligible
and
meritorious
candidates from getting appointment to
government posts. Treating compassionate
ground appointments as an unconditional and
vested right and making it a source of
recruitment will shear the thin veil of legality
which protects such appointments from the vice
of unconstitutionality. The very concept of
compassionate ground will then be exposed to
the wrath of Articles 14, 15, 16 of the
Constitution of India. (Para 14)

B. The purpose of grant of compassionate
ground appointments can be subserved
and their constitutionality can be saved
only by strict compliance of the rules
governing the grant of compassionate
ground appointments. (Para 15)

Appointment on compassionate grounds
seeks to relieve the immediate financial
hardship faced by the dependants of the
deceased. It acts as an exception to
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as
the
defendant
are
given
preferential
appointment
ahead
of
other
equally
meritorious candidates similarly placed
and hence it cannot be claimed as a right.
This appointment must be done in accordance
with the rules for such appointment. The