CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH th HYDERABAD, this the 12 day of September, 2025 HON’BLE Mrs. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Janipalli Ganga Devi, W/o. J. Rama Mohan Rao (Late), Aged about 69 years, Occ: House wife, D.No.20-13/A, Sri Sai Nagar, Yerrakonda, Dowlaiswaram – 533 125 Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State.

... Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. V.U. Raja Veer)

Vs

1. The Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, III Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003.

2. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts (Pension Section), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Director General of Postal Services, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

4. The Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, PSD Complex, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada – 520 013.

5. The Director of Postal Services (Head Quarters), Andhra Pradesh Circle, PSD Complex, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada – 520 013.

6. The General Manager (PAO & Finance), Andhra Pradesh Circle, CPMG Building, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada – 520 013.

7. The Accounts Officer (Pension), Postal Accounts, Andhra Pradesh Circle, CPMG Building, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada – 520 013. 8. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajahmundry Division, Rajahmundry – 533 101.

9. The Sub-Post Master, Dowlaiswaram Post Office, Rajahmundry Division, Dowlaiswaram – 533 125.

… Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. K. Ravi Krishnakanth, Addl. CGSC)

---

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon’ble Hon’ble Shalini Misra, Administrative Member)

The applicant has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for all material Service Records of the issuance of Respondents Impugned Order Proceedings dt.11-3-2024, dt.9-2- 2024, dt. 8-8-2023, dt.14-7-2021 declaring the action of the Respondents authorities in denying same as Unjust, arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory and to set-aside same and direct the Respondents to grant 1st Applicant family pension after demise of her husband J. Rama Mohan Rao on dt. 16-12-2018 to till to continues revise Pension as per under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Service (pension) Rules, 2021 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case according to the applicant are that the 1st applicant was the widow of late Sri J. Rama Mohan Rao, who served as a Postal Assistant and retired on 31.07.1995. He passed away on 16.12.2018. The applicants claimed that the 1^st applicant and the deceased lived together for over 40 years and had three children. Despite the Department recognizing the 1^st applicant through a Joint PPO and a Joint Bank Account during the pensioner's lifetime, the respondents rejected the claim for family pension after his death.

3. The applicants contended that the 1^st applicant was the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and, therefore, possessed an indefeasible right to receive family pension. They argued that the 1^st applicant shared a domestic life with the deceased for a continuous period exceeding 40 years, which established a strong legal and social presumption of a valid marriage. They contended that the long duration of their cohabitation was a matter of public record, supported by numerous government-issued documents such as Aadhar cards, Voter ID cards, and a Ration Card, all of which consistently described the 1st applicant as the wife of Sri J. Rama Mohan Rao. They further contended that Applicants No. 2, 3, and 4 were the natural-born children of the deceased and the 1st applicant, and their educational records, including School Transfer Certificates from decades ago, clearly named the deceased as their father.

4. The applicants contended that the Department itself formally recognized the 1