Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certificates.

ORDER

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:-

“(a) issue a suitable order or direction quashing impugned letter/ order dated 24.7.2015 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-13) to the Original application.

(b) issue suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner on the death of her husband Mahatam Vishwakarma.

(c) issue suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to make necessary correction in the pension papers as prayed by Late Mahatam Vishwakarma in his Correction application dated 15.3.2015 (Annexure -A9) to the original application.

(d) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(e) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the O.A. are that earlier the husband of the applicant Late Mahatam Vishwakarma was married with respondent no. 4 in the year 1973, and as respondent no.4 could not bear children and the relations were still cordial, they decided to part with consent and she had given an affidavit to permit her husband to freely solemnize new marriage as per his choice vide affidavit dated 10.01.1986 (Annexure A-2 of O.A. and Original copy is attached with the rejoinder as Annexure RA-1). Applicant and her husband belong to the Shudra Community, where divorce with consent is permissible under the law. Respondent no. 4 was unable to give birth due to medical incapability which was the reason her husband left her to marry another lady. As such the Late Mahatam Vishwakarma married the applicant in June 1985, which is claimed to have legal sanctity. After marriage between Mahatam Vishwakarma and the applicant, the birth of 03 daughters and 01 son has taken place. In the service book of Late Mahatam Vishwakarma, name of the applicant as Wife, himself, mother, three daughters and one son as has been mentioned dependents vide declaration of family dependents on 27.09.2005 (Annexure A-5 at page 37 of the O.A.). Further respondent no. 4 had filed the Suit No. 296 of 2009 for dissolution of her marriage since 1983, vide plaint of Suit No. 296 of 2009 (Annexure A-3 of O.A. filed with rejoinder as Annexure RA-2). The suit has been finalized and dissolution of marriage has been decreed by considering the fact that respondent no. 4 and late Mahatam Vishwakarma were divorced and living separately with consent since 1983 as per customs and usages prevailing in the Shudra Community and married with the applicant. (Decree of marriage dissolution is attached as Annexure A-4 of O.A. and photo copy of original copy filed as Annexure RA-3 of rejoinder). The husband of the applicant while retiring on 31.05.2014 has filled up the pension form but due to some misconception the name of respondent no. 4 has been mentioned as wife. After noticing the fact, the official respondents themselves admitted that there is no detail of respondent no. 4 in the service book of the Mahatam Vishwakarma as dependent, so they asked for explanation vide letter dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure A-7 of the O.A. at page 40), which has been replied by the husband of the applicant who requested to mention the name of the applicant as wife in the pension form vide letter dated 12.03.2015, but before taking any further action by the respondents, the husband of the applicant died on 22.04.2015. Respondent no.2 sent letters dated 07.07.2015 and 24.07.20