CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00281 of 2015 Dated, this 22nd day of January, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative Smt. Sushma Saxena aged about 38 years, W/o Late Harish Chandra Saxena, R/o E-1/71, Sector-B, Aliganj, Lucknow, U.P.

…..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar VERSUS

1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

2. Director, Directorate of Census Operations, Uttar Pradesh, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lekhraj Market-III, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

3. Deputy Director (Administration), Directorate of Census Operations, Uttar Pradesh, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lekhraj Market-III, Indira Nagar, Lucknow- 226016.

4. Controller of Accounts, Central Pension Accounting Office, Government of India, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Trikoot-II, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.

5. Joint Director and Controlling Officer, Directorate of Census Operation, Uttar Pradesh, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lekhraj Market-III, Indira Nagar, Lucknow-226016.

6. Smt. Prity Bhatnagar aged about 44 years, W/o Shri Vivek Bhatnagar R/o B-1/20, Sector – G Aliganj, Lucknow.

7. Smt. Deepti Srivastava aged about 41 years, W/o Shri Anurag Srivastava, R/o House No. C-142, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-5, Noida, U.P.

8. Smt. Mukti Saxena aged about 40 years, W/o Shri Subodh Saxena, R/o Flat No. 15/302, Mayur Vihar Extension, E & D Apartment, New Delhi.

9. Smt. Priya T. J. aged about 36 years, W/o Shri Sunil T.J., R/o Girja Nilay, 6th Cross, Vidya Nagar, Tumkur (Karnataka).

…..Respondent By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta (R 1 to 5)

Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma (R 6 to 9)

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to grant of family pension, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2015 passed by respondent No. 5 contained as Annexure No. 1 to the O.A.

(ii) Issue an order to the respondents to pay family pension to the applicant with effect from 01.05.2011 regularly every month.

(iii) Issue an order to the respondents to make payment of interest upon the arrear of pension at the prevailing market rate which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case up till the date of actual payment.

(iv) Any other order or directions, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.

(v) Award the cost of the original application.”

2.1 The applicant has preferred this OA against the impugned order dated 07.05.2015 issued by the respondents (in compliance to this Tribunal’s order dated 12.12.2014 passed in OA No. 115 of 2013) vide which the applicant’s claim to family pension as the second wife of Harish Chandra Saxena, the deceased employee, has been rejected.

2.2 Harish Chandra Saxena retired from service on 31.03.2005 while working on the post of Statistical Assistant Grade-III under the respondents. His first wife, Madhuri Saxena, passed away on 09.05.2005. He married the applicant on 04.04.2006 as per the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir (Annexure A-4 to the OA) and the certificate issued by the Registrar, Hindu Marriage, U.P. (Annexure A-5 to the OA). Harish Chandra Saxena passed away on 22.04.2011.

3. The applicant contends that her representation for family pension was denied by the respondents mainly on the ground that in their office records, the deceased employee had nominated Madhuri Saxena (his first wife) for family pension and the deceased employee had not informed them about his second marriage (with the applicant)

during his lifetime even though she furnished documents required to them. In support, the applicant cites Bhagwanti vs Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 397 and G L Bhatia vs Union of India & Ors