The right of a spouse to family pension is independent of obligations towards children from a previous marriage.

ORDER

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

Applicant is a former Stores Superintendent in the office of the 2^nd respondent, who retired from service by availing voluntary retirement on 30.06.2005. He had married one Aleyamma on 17.01.1993. In that relationship one girl child, Merlin was born on 07.10.1994. But, later, differences of opinion developed in the marital relationship and the applicant moved the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor with O.P.No.88/1999 seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. By Annexure-A3 order dated 07.05.2005, divorce was granted and the request for restoration of conjugal rights claimed by the wife was rejected. Thus, that relationship severed through Court proceedings. It has been pointed out that when the said Aleyamma had moved the Hon'ble High Court with Matrimonial Appeal No.358/2005, a consensus was reached whereunder the Matrimonial Appeal was disposed of in terms of a compromise reached between the parties. It is shown that the applicant had executed a gift deed in favour of his former wife and the payments made till then to the wife were taken as the full and final settlement of all the claims of the former wife and the daughter Merlin Mathew, and thus decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties was passed by the High Court.

2. Annexure-A4 judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 23.10.2009. The applicant had taken voluntary retirement on 30.06.2005. The Annexure-A3 decree of divorce was passed on 07.05.2005. Thereafter, the applicant filed fresh nomination, cancelling the earlier nomination, naming his minor daughter with the intention of passing family pension in the event of his death. Subsequently, on 02.03.2019 the applicant contracted a second marriage with one Joly. Then he made a request before the respondents for incorporating the name of Joly as his wife, to grant family pension. That was not acceded to and by Annexure-A1 order dated 13.10.2023, the respondents insisted, under Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 calling the following details:

i) Marriage Certificate, if Merlin Mathew is married, duly attested by Gazetted Officer or Magistrate;

ii) Proof regarding source of income if not married;

iii) Bank statement for 2 years, if not married;

iv) Copy of PAN and Aadhaar card duly attested by him and the Gazetted Officer.

3. The applicant's grievances is two fold. Firstly, in the Pension Payment Order, Annexure-A2, nothing has been stated regarding family pension, instead it was stated that 'family pension not sanctioned being disputed case'. Secondly, the name of the second wife with whom a marriage was contracted on 02.03.2019, has not been incorporated. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for quashing Annexure-A1 and to direct the respondents to include the name of his post retiral spouse Joly in the Pension Payment Order as a family pension beneficiary forthwith.

4. According to the applicant, Annexure-A4 judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court finding that he has discharged all the liabilities towards the former wife and the daughter and the decree of divorce dissolving the marriage was passed considering such a payment as well; therefore, he has no liability existing towards the daughter also. The said direction issued by the respondents under Rule 54 has no application as far as the case is concerned, it relates to a deceased Government servant or pensioner, who is survived by a widow. The contingency to invoke Rule 54 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 or the Government of India decision No.16 below