Pensionary entitlement and legitimacy of children from a void marriage can be determined by reasonable State inquiry.

The SC held that, in a dispute over family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, the State may conduct a bona fide and reasonable inquiry to identify the rightful claimant and need not wait for a civil court declaration, provided the inquiry is not arbitrary. It further held that children born from a marriage void under the Hindu Marriage Act remain legitimate under Section 16 and may share pensionary and gratuity benefits as lawful heirs. The woman in the void union, however, acquired no independent status as widow. The claim of the children was upheld and the first wife's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in a dispute over family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, the State Government could inquire into the status of the competing claimants and determine entitlement without awaiting a civil court declaration; (ii) whether children born from a marriage void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were entitled to share the pensionary benefits as legitimate children.

Issue (i): whether, in a dispute over family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity, the State Government could inquire into the status of the competing claimants and determine entitlement without awaiting a civil court declaration.

Analysis: Where two sets of claimants seek pensionary benefits after the death of a government servant, the State is required to make a bona fide and reasonable inquiry to identify the rightful recipient. Disbursement of such benefits cannot be withheld until a civil court adjudicates the matrimonial status of the parties. The inquiry, however, must not be arbitrary or sham.

Conclusion: The State Government was competent to hold the inquiry and act upon its conclusion for the limited purpose of deciding entitlement to pensionary benefits.

Issue (ii): whether children born from a marriage void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were entitled to share the pensionary benefits as legitimate children.

Analysis: A long cohabitation as husband and wife gives rise to a presumption of marriage, though the presumption is rebuttable. On the facts, the presumption that the marriage had been performed could not be displaced. Even so, a marriage contracted during the lifetime of a spouse was void under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Children of a void marriage are, by virtue of Section 16 of that Act, legitimate. Their entitlement to share in the estate follows the rule of succession applicable to legitimate children, although the woman in the void union does not acquire the status of a widow. In the context of pensionary benefits, the legitimate children of the void marriage could be treated as beneficiaries along with the other lawful heir.

Conclusion: The children of the void marriage were entitled to be treated as legitimate for the purpose of pensionary and gratuity benefits, but the second wife had no independent entitlement.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment allowing the claim of the children from the void marriage for pensionary benefits was upheld, and the challenge by the first wife failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a dispute over posthumous pensionary benefits, the employer or State may determine the rightful claimant by inquiry, and children of a void marriage remain legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the purposes of legal benefits flowing from that status.

---