The legal point established is the entitlement of the legally wedded spouse to pensionary benefits under the applicable rules and the invalidity of nominations contrary to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

1. In the present case, the petitioner challenges the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) Principal Bench, New Delhi and also seeks quashing of order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Executive Engineer, CPWD.

2. The petitioner claims to be the second wife of the deceased – Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, who was serving as UDC in respondent No. 3/CPWD. On 16.03.2017, Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta died in harness. The petitioner on that premise is seeking the pensionary benefits, which she claims she is entitled to. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are official respondents and respondents No.4 and 5, namely, Ms. Anjali Gupta and Mr. Nikhil Gupta are the children of deceased – Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta from his first marriage.

3. It is not disputed that Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta did not inform respondent No. 3/CPWD about the fact of his re-marriage with the petitioner. It is also on record that respondent No.4 - Ms. Anjali Gupta has been shown as nominee in the nomination papers submitted by Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta. It is also un-disputed that the petitioner’s Aadhar Card and CGHS medical card show her as wife of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta.

4. After the death of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, the petitioner applied for family pension and on 12.06.2017 submitted the relevant forms. However, she neither received any response nor was any action initiated by respondent No. 3/CPWD. Aggrieved by the lack of response, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 14.07.2017, no reply, however, was sent to the said legal notice. In such circumstances, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide O.A. No. 3623/2017, which was filed on 28.09.2017. By the order dated 13.10.2017, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, passed a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order in respect of her claim of family pension and other benefits. Vide the order dated 11.01.2018, a speaking order was passed by the respondent No. 3/CPWD rejecting her claims.

5. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner was yet again constrained to approach the Tribunal vide O.A. No. 562/2018 on 31.01.2018.

6. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal came to the following conclusion:

(a) the petitioner's name was not reflected in the nomination papers.

(b) the respondent No.4 - Ms. Anjali Gupta's name appeared as a nominee in the said nomination papers.

(c) the petitioner was unable to file any marriage certificate or a succession certificate to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta.

(d) Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta did not inform the respondent No. 3/CPWD about the second marriage with the petitioner herein.

7. On the basis of above aspects and documents, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner could substantiate and prove her case only on the basis of a valid succession certificate to be obtained by the petitioner in accordance with law. Thus, on this basis, the O.A. was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 07.01.2019.

8. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to provide succession certificate to the respondent No. 3/CPWD, failing which the claim to family pension and other benefits would stand rejected. In the meanwhile, the Tribunal gave directions to release provisional pension to the petitioner. It appears that the respondents had not complied with the order of provisional pension passed by the Tribunal. A contempt petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground of non-compliance of order dated 07.01.2019. Pursuant to this, the said order of provisional pension was complied with by the respondents on 19.08.2019.

9. We have heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents. The official respondents No. 1 to 3 are represented by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and respondents No. 4 and 5 are represented by Mr. O.P. Saxena.

10. Mr. Jangra, learned