ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas The applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 04.07.2019 (Annex. A/1), whereby, their application dated 24.06.2019 to release pension and other claims pertaining to late Hari Ram in their favour was rejected by the respondents.

2. The facts necessary to adjudicate the instant OA is as under :-

2.1 The deceased employee late Hari Ram, after serving for more than 37 years with the respondent No. 2, superannuated on 31.07.2017. After his retirement, he died on 10.05.2019. Thereafter, the applicant No. 1 claiming to be wife of the deceased employee moved an application on 24.06.2019 to respondent No. 2 requesting him for releasing pension and other terminal benefits of the deceased employee late Hari Ram, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 04.07.2019 (Annex. A/1)

2.2 Being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant No.1 alongwith her son and daughter, applicant No. 2 & 3 respectively, filed this OA with the averment that late Hari Ram married to applicant No. 1 on 27.06.1985 as per customs prevailing in the society. From the wedlock of them, two children namely applicant No. 2 & applicant No. 3 were born.

2.3 As per averments made in the OA, Hari Ram married to private respondent No. 3 in his childhood. Their relation did not remain cordial, respondent No. 3 left her matrimonial house in 1982 and never returned back despite all efforts made by Hari Ram. It is also averred that in the mourn message got published by respondent No. 3 in the newspaper on the demise of late Hari Ram shows the name of applicant No. 2 & applicant No. 3 as son and daughter respectively of late Hari Ram. While citing the provisions of Rule 53 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules], it is pleaded that ‘where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares.’ It is further pleaded that nomination under Rule 53 of Pension Rules is only for the purpose of retirement gratuity/death gratuity payable under Rule 50 and not for the purpose of grant of family pension and other terminal benefits, which are payable in equal share each to all legal heirs of late Hari Ram under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2.4 As per reply filed by private respondent No. 3, the question raised by the applicants cannot be considered by this Tribunal. As per nomination, only respondent No. 3 is entitled for family pension and other dues. The applicants can pursue their claim before Civil Court only. Till that moment, any right if declared in their favour, the respondents are to abide by the nominations submitted by late Hari Ram, the deceased employee.

2.5 As per reply filed by the official respondents No. 1 & 2, the subject matter of instant OA is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This Tribunal cannot decided whether the applicant No. 1 is second wife of late Hari Ram and the applicant No. 2 & applicant No. 3 are son and daughter respectively, of late Hari Ram. The applicants are required to be declared as wife, son & daughter respectively by the competent civil court and such adjudication cannot be made by the official respondents.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicants have already filed application seeking succession certificate in the civil court. The applicant No. 1 is legally wedded wife of late Hari Ram, whereas, the applicant No. 2 & applicant No. 3 are son and daughter, respectively, of late Hari Ram borne out of wedlock of applicant No. 1 and deceased employee. In alternate, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even if the applicant No. 1 fails to establish her valid marriage, then also the applicant No. 2 & applicant No. 3 being children of late Hari Ram, th