CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Tuesday, this the 29th day of October, 2024.

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER P.V.Beena, aged 50 years, W/o Late Thulaseedharan C., ''Samthripthi'', Pottankavu, Kollode P.O., Maranelloor, Kattakkada, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 571.

- Applicant [By Advocate: Mr. T. Naveen]

Versus

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Accountant General (G & SSA), Kerala, Office of the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

3. Shobana Raj S., Preetha Bhavan, T.C. 76/1381, Ananthapuriyil, Kannammola, Pettah P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 024.

- Respondents [By Advocates : Mrs. Sreekala T.K for R-1 & 2 and Mr. S.

Rajasekharan Nair & Mr. Raju Vadakkekara for R-3]

The Original Application having been heard on 29.10.2024, the Tribunal on the same day delivered the following:

O R D E R (Oral):-

Claiming herself as the widow of late Thulaseedharan C., Senior Auditor in the office of the 2^nd respondent, the applicant has challenged the non-feasance on the part of the respondents in not granting her family pension in her capacity as the widow, to direct the respondents to issue orders sanctioning family pension to the applicant being widow of late Thulaseedharan C. and grant such other reliefs.

2. The applicant claimed herself as the legally wedded wife of late Thulaseedharan who passed away on 03.09.2018. According to her, she was married by Thulaseedharan on 15.04.2003, in accordance with the customs and rituals prevailing in the community. But the respondents have refused to grant her pension. On the other hand, the 2^nd respondent granted 50% of pension to Smt. Shobana Raj S., 3^rd respondent, which according to the applicant is illegal. The applicant also challenges the stand of respondent no.2 that the children of the applicant alone are eligible for the remaining portion of family pension.

3. The respondents have disputed the claims of the applicant.

According to them, late Thulaseedharan C. had nominated the 3^rd respondent as the spouse, in the Service Book. The inquiry of the respondents also revealed that he had married the 3^rd respondent according to the customs prevailing in the community. According to the 2^nd respondent, government servant conducting a second marriage during the lifetime of the spouse is illegal and violative of the Conduct Rules. Even though the name of the 3^rd respondent is not incorporated in the PPO before retirement, the deceased pensioner had failed to produce joint photograph of himself and his wife. On the other hand, the applicant had moved a representation claiming herself as widow of the deceased pensioner and also stating that two children have been born in the relationship with the service pensioner. But the applicant failed to produce documents proving marriage. At the same time, she produced a notarised affidavit proving that the applicant is the wife since 15.04.2003 and birth certificates of two children and a copy of the ration card. In the light of the same, the respondents have taken a decision to grant 50% of family pension to the 3^rd respondent. In the light of the claim of the applicant, it is proposed to grant remaining 50% pension to the girl children as per Rule 54 (14) (b) (1) of CCS Pension Rules.

4. Pursuant to the communication issued by the 2^nd respondent, the applicant moved a representation to the 2^nd respondent claiming family pension to herself, which was rejected by Annexure A6. Annexure A6 is under challenge.

5. I heard Shri. Abhishek V.S. representing Shri. T. Naveen, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri. Vineeth Komalachandran representing Smt. Sreekala T.K., learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

6. Evidently Sri. Thulaseedharan C. retired as Senior Auditor under the 2^nd respondent on 28.02.2010, was sanctioned pension. On his expiry on 03.09.2018, ordinarily family pension has to be granted to his widow. As late Thulaseedharan C. had not produced any joint ph