Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12557
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, J
Smt. Roshni Devi – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT – Respondent
O.A. No.2124/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Janak Raj Rana
For the Respondents: Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal
The court affirmed that both legally wedded wives of a deceased government employee are entitled to equal shares of family pension, emphasizing the need for equitable treatment under the law.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 - Sub-rules 8(c) and 8(d) of Rule 50 - Family pension entitlement - Second wife of deceased government employee petitions for family pension - Request for nomination change denied by authorities, arguing that pension benefits are exclusive to one spouse unless permitted by law. Despite hurdles, entitlement for family pension under the rules outlined following the interpretation aligned with societal welfare principles is emphasized - Tribunal allows pension to second wife. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)
(B) Government employment and personal laws - Recognition of legal status for second marriage after obtaining necessary permissions establishes the second wife’s rights - Emphasizes equal shares for multiple widows, ensuring economic protection for dependents. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The deceased employee sought to ensure proportionate pension for both his legally wedded wives upon remarriage, reflecting family dynamics. Disputes over pension rights raised post his death led to legal entanglements between surviving spouses.
Findings of Court:
The application for family pension was examined alongside relevant rules and precedents, weighing legal principles against the backdrop of personal circumstances.
Issues: Primarily, whether family pension can be divided proportionately between the two legally recognized wives after the employee's death.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal entitlement to family pension for both wives under the rules, subject to equitable distribution to avoid destitution within the family. The Tribunal’s decision reinforces pension principles recognizing multiple spousal claims post-marriage.
Result: The OA is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of pension rights post-mortem. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments surrounding legal recognition of multiple wives. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. observations on the applicability of pension rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ratio clarifying entitlement of family pension. (Para 13) |
ORDER
The applicant who is the second wife of the deceased employee of the Delhi Police, who died on 27.03.2006, has filed the instant OA, seeking the following relief(s) :-
(a) To declare the actions of the respondent as unjust, arbitrary and illegal; and
(b)Quash and set aside the impugned letter no.4593/Estt.Br/IGI Airport dated 24.05.2023.,
(c)Direct the respondent to grant family pension to the applicant with arrears
(d)Any other relief which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2.1 The brief factual matrix of the case is that the deceased employee of the Delhi Police (husband of the applicant), namely, Shri Raghubir Singh joined the Delhi Police in the year 1949. He got married in the year 1949 itself. He remarried for the second time in the year 1972, after obtaining permission from the Lt. Governor. He was blessed with four daughters and two sons out of the second wedlock.
2.2 On 07.02.1997, the husband of the applicant made a request to the respondents to change his nomination in service book by granting proportionate pension to both the wives since both were legally wedded wives of the deceased employee. However, the respondents did not accede to his request. The husband of the applicant retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1988 and pension was granted to him.
2.3 On 27.03.2006, the husband of the applicant died, leaving behind two legally wedded wives and six children. After the death of the deceased employee, the family pension was granted to his first wife, namely, Smt. Shanti Devi, who made a request to the respondents to divide the family pension proportionately to both wives in equal ratio i.e. 50% to each wife on 20.05.2007 (Annexure-A/5). However, the said request of the first wife of the applicant was declined by the respondents vide letter dated 08.08.2007 (Annexure-A/6). Thereafter, the first wife of the applicant i.e. Smt. Shanti Devi also died on 07.11.2022
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that although the applicant made a request for change of nomination in service book to the Accountant General XVI (Police), Pay and Accounts Office, Delhi Administration for change in nomination to grant proportionate pension to both the wives, the respondents did not grant the same.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents were aware about the compelling circumstances of the applicant, however, they did not recommend grant of family pension to the surviving second wife. The husband of the applicant as well as his first wife are deceased, yet the Pay & Accounts Office, by quoting the relevant rules on the subject, state that the family pension can only be given to one spouse unless and until the personal laws of the deceased govt. servant permits contracting marriage more than one spouse.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his contentions is relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in the following cases :-
(i) Indu Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Writ Appeal No. 358/2018 decided on 07.12.2022;
(ii) Lakhpati Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 12441 of 2004) decided on 01.02.2005; and
(iii) The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gaddam Ruth Victoria vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2023 SСС Online AP 1690 decided on 18.08.2023.
6. After issuance of notice, the respondents filed their reply opposing the OA. Mr. Jalaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the applicant was forwarded by the department to the PAO No.16 (DP-II), MHA, Man Singh Road vide office letter dated 24
