CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW Original Application No. 332/00271 of 2023 Order reserved on: 31.10.2025 Order pronounced on: 26.11.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Smt. Alia, aged about 42 years, widow of Late Irfan Ahmad, R/o Bangla Bazar, L.D.A. Colony, Lucknow.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Smt. Bhavana Gupta VERSUS

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Headquarter Gorakhpur.

2. The General Manager Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

3. Assistant Financial Advisor/Pension Banaras.

…..Respondents By Advocate: Sri B.B. Tripathi ORDER Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to grant of family pension to the post-retiral spouse, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) Quash/set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 passed by Opposite party no. 2 contained in Annexure No. 1 respectively to this Original Application and provide all consequential benefits to the applicant;

(ii) To direct the opposite parties to pay all post-retirement benefits to the applicant like family pension and other dues if any with complete arrears of family pension along with interest @18% per annum since due date till the date of actual payment.

(iii) To pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper in the above circumstances in favour of the petitioner in the interest of the justice.

(iv) Award the cost of the Original Application.

2. Aggrieved with the rejection of her claim for family pension by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 10.11.2022, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant states that her husband, Irfan Ahmad, retired from service on 31.07.2002 and married her on 10.02.2007; the first wife of Irfan Ahmad died many years ago. The applicant states further that her husband died on 22.04.2021 and she submitted representations to the respondents for family pension which were declined by them on the ground that family pension was not payable to her as per rules. The applicant contends that she cannot be denied family pension as she had married Irfan Ahmad on 10.02.2007 as per the Nikahnama or marriage certificate attached as Annexure 3 to the OA.

4. Per contra, the respondents state that Irfan Ahmad retired on 31.07.2002 and at the time of retirement he had not mentioned name of any family member in the prescribed form and, accordingly, the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued in his name only. It is further stated that as per the Railway Board’s letter dated 29.09.1993, as and when a pensioner marries or remarries after retirement, he is required to intimate the event to the Head of Office with attested copy of marriage certificate, but in the present case, no such intimation was given or document was submitted during the lifetime of the deceased employee. It is contended that after the death of Irfan Ahmad, the fact of his marriage with the applicant cannot be established and, therefore, the applicant’s claim was not considered.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant cites rule 50(6)(i) and rule 50(13)(h) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 as well as T K Vijaya Kumari vs UOI (OA No. 517/2008), Sangeeta vs Department of Personnel & Training (OA No. 807/2022) and Bhagwanti vs Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 397 in support of her contention.

6. Heard both the parties.

7.1 In Bhagwanti (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held the distinction between marriage before and after retirement as arbitrary in the following terms:

“9. Pension is payable, as pointed out in several judgments of this Court, on the consideration of past service rendered by the Government servant. Payability of the family pension is basically on the self-same consideration. Since pension is linked with past service and the avowed purpose of the Pension Rules is to provide sustenance in old age, distinction between marriage during service and marriage after retirement appears to