Mere marriage registration does not entitle second wife for pension: CAT
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, has rejected a claim by a retired postman for family pension to his second wife, who was having a live-in relationship with him when his first marriage was subsisting and registered the marriage after his retirement.
Dismissing the application of M.Yesudhasan of Kanyakumari, the CAT’s member B.Venkateswara Rao said, “The applicant being a Central government employee must be aware that contracting a second marriage without dissolution of the first marriage is an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Mere registration does not entitle the second wife for family pension.”
M.Yesudhasan had married Jesintha Mary in 1981 while he was in service. Due to a strained relationship, she sought divorce before a competent court and was granted decree of divorce in 1997. The divorce was confirmed by the Madras High Court in 2000. He had a live-in relationship with Lalitha Mary since 1994 and their marriage was solemnised the same year. He retired in 2008.
In 2010, he received a communication from the Postal department rejecting his request to include her name as a nominee for family pension on the ground that the second marriage was not valid as the first marriage was subsisting. When he made a fresh request, the Postal department again rejected it. Approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, he contended that neither there was any bar on him to get married after retirement nor any difficulty in nominating the post-retiral spouse for family pension.
The Postal department contended that his second marriage was solemnised in 1994 when the first one was subsisting, but the registration was done under the Special Marriage Act after his retirement. Therefore, it could not be termed post-retiral marriage.
Stay connected with us via Facebook, Google+ or Email Subscription.