CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 10 O.A./137/2017 (JAIPUR)

[ FAMILY PENSION ]

Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 45 Order Dated: 03/03/2025 KAMLI DEVI Vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri B.K. Jatti For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri T.P. Sharma through V.C. for respondents No. 2 to 4., Shri N.C. Goyal for respondent No. 1.

Order of The Tribunal It is a 2017 matter and has already been adjourned 45 times. Being a matter of family pension sought by a widow lady who has been before this Tribunal since 2017, I am not inclined to defer it further. The issue here is that the husband of the applicant, Shri Gopal Lal Meena retired on 29.02.2012, and he later expired on 21.06.2015. Thereafter, his first wife, Mrs. Soni Devi, started getting the family pension. Mrs. Soni Devi also expired on 06.11.2015, leaving behind Mrs. Kamli Devi, i.e. the applicant in the present case, who was the second wife of the deceased Shri Gopal Lal Meena. After the death of the first wife Mrs. Soni Devi (who was receiving the family pension), the applicant applied for the family pension but the same was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 15.03.2016 on the ground that she being second wife of late Shri Gopal Lal Meena, is not entitled for family pension as a legally wedded as per sub Rule 15 of Rule 56 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed before me the order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur, declaring the applicant Smt. Kamli Devi Meena, as a legal heir of Late Shri Gopal Lal Meena, after considering grounds as well as evidence observing that late Shri Gopal Lal Meena belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community and according to the customs of the community, he had solemnized two marriages and the first wife, Smt. Soni Devi died on 06.11.2015, and the late Shri Gopal Lal Meena did not have any children from either of his wives. The learned District Judge has also observed that the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable in the applicant’s case.

On the other hand, Shri N.C. Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, states that the late Shri Gopal Lal Meena, during his lifetime, had not informed the factum of his second marriage. He reiterated the pleadings made by the respondents in their reply and stated that as per sub Rule 12(a)(i)of Rule 54 Of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972" As soon as a Govt. Servant enters Government service, he shall give details of his family in form-3 to the Head of office. Sub Rule 12 (b)of Rule 54 further provides that " the Government servant shall communicate to the head of office any subsequent change in the size of family including the fact of marriage[]child. Sub Rule 12 (d) (ii) of Rule 54 provides that "the Head of office on receipt of communication from the Government servant regarding any change in the size of family shall have a change incorporate in form-3". As per copy available form-3 late Shri Gopal Lal Meena had never communicated any change of his family members as required under sub Rule 12 (b) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Shri N.C. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that in case the first wife dies prior to the employee, only then the second wife would be entitled to family pension. However, the learned counsel has not been able to substantiate his contention with any law/rule. On the other hand, the applicant has relied upon the judgment dated 14.02.2001 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 2436/2000 in the matter of Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur Vs. Durga Charan Hansdah & Anr. He has also relied upon the judgment dated

17.11.2016 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 497/2015.

Heard both sides and perused the documents and judgement relied upon by the parties.

In the above-mentioned judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, however, submitted that even if the second marriage was not void for the purposes of attra