The husband of a deceased female government servant is entitled to family pension and post-death benefits as a statutory right under service rules, which cannot be defeated by nomination or family disputes.

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for fixing and releasing of the family pension in favour of the applicant being husband (legal heir) of the deceased Neelam Devi, Head Constable by issuance of Writ of Mandamus;

b) To issue directions to the respondents to release General Provident Fund, Death Gratuity, Leave Encashment and all other consequential service benefits in favour of the applicant by issuance of writ of Mandamus;

c) To declare the act of the respondents by which the respondents have not granted the family pension and other consequential service benefits in favour of the applicant being a husband of the deceased Neelam Devi, Head Constable as ultra-vires, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice by issuance of writ of Mandamus.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The present Original Application has been preferred by the applicant seeking release of family pension and other post-death service benefits on account of the demise of his wife, namely Smt. Neelam Devi, who died in harness on 05.05.2023 while serving as Head Constable under Belt No.328 IR & PID No.925678 in the J&K Police Department.

b) The present Original Application has been instituted by the applicant, Rakesh Kumar, who is the legally wedded husband of late Smt. Neelam Devi. The deceased employee was serving as a Head Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department under Belt No. 328 IR and PID No. 925678 and unfortunately expired while in active service on 05.05.2023. It is not in dispute that the applicant and the deceased were married according to law and that one daughter, namely Ms. Anushka Soan, born on 01.09.2006, was born out of the said wedlock. It is also an admitted position that no decree of divorce was ever passed between the applicant and the deceased during her lifetime.

c) Following the demise of his wife, the applicant, who himself is serving as a Head Constable in the J&K Police, approached the respondent authorities for release of family pension, death gratuity, General Provident Fund, leave encashment and other admissible post-death service benefits accruing on account of the death of his wife in harness. Despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to process and release the said benefits in his favour, compelling the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

d) The applicant asserts that under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, 1956 and the Jammu and Kashmir Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964, the husband of a deceased female government servant is the primary beneficiary entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits. It is pleaded that mere separation or strained matrimonial relations do not extinguish the legal status of marriage in the absence of a decree of divorce. The applicant has further clarified that he is not claiming any dual benefit of dearness allowance and undertakes to draw only such allowances as are permissible under the relevant service rules.

e) Aggrieved by the inaction and refusal of the respondents to grant the statutory benefits, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking directions for release of family pension and other post-death service benefits in his favour, contending that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the governing service rules.

3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -

a) The respondents have filed their reply opposing the Original Application, primarily on the ground that there exists an inter- se dispute between the applicant and th