SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2695

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Umesh Gajankush, J
Ramila Prabhu Chandwani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.539/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Olivil S. Nadar
For the Respondents: Sharanya Sinha

Denial of family pension to a second wife on grounds of non-intimation of death of first wife and remarriage by deceased employee is arbitrary; Head of Office must process claim under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rules 54, 81(1), 81(2)(v), 81(2)(b)(i) - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Family pension - Entitlement of second wife - Denial of family pension on ground of non-intimation of death of first wife and remarriage by deceased employee - Duty of Head of Office to process claim upon intimation of death of pensioner - Rules 81(2)(v) and 81(2)(b)(i) cover contingencies where name of claimant not recorded in Pension Payment Order or where claimant becomes family member after retirement.

(B) Pension and family pension are statutory rights and regarded as property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India - Departmental authorities not supposed to make claimant run from pillar to post - Proper verification of documents necessary.

Facts of the case:
Applicant, claiming to be second wife of deceased pensioner Prabhu Pessumal Chandwani, sought family pension after his death on 22.09.2024. The first wife had died on 12.03.1992, and the applicant married the deceased on 08.05.1992. The deceased employee had not informed his office about the death of his first wife and remarriage, so the name of the first wife continued to appear in the Pension Payment Order. Respondents rejected applicant's claim citing lack of intimation and records.

Findings of Court:
The impugned communications of respondents were arbitrary and unreasonable. Competent authority directed to reconsider the case for grant of family pension with proper verification of documents within 120 days.

Issues: Whether the applicant, being the second wife of the deceased pensioner, is entitled to family pension despite non-intimation of death of first wife and remarriage by the deceased employee; whether denial of claim without proper verification of documents is arbitrary.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 81(1) casts duty on Head of Office to process the matter upon receiving intimation of death of a pensioner. Rules 81(2)(v) and 81(2)(b)(i) cover all contingencies including non-inclusion of name earlier and person becoming family member after retirement. Departmental authorities cannot make claimant run from pillar to post.

Result: Original Application disposed of with direction to reconsider.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • administrative law
    • pension and retirement benefits
      • family pension (Para 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
  • constitutional law
    • right to property (Para 9)

Table of Contents

1. Family pension claim by second wife of deceased pensioner under CCS(Pension) Rules. (Para 2 )

2. Department denies pension due to lack of intimation; applicant claims entitlement under Rules 54 and 81. (Para 6 , 7 )

3. Impugned orders set aside; respondents directed to reconsider family pension claim within 120 days. (Para 11 , 12 )

4. What is the duty of the Head of Office upon receiving intimation of death of a pensioner?

Under Rule 81(1), the Head of Office must process the claim and not make the claimant run from pillar to post. (Para 8 , 9 )

5. Can a person who becomes a family member after retirement claim family pension under the CCS(Pension) Rules?

Yes, Rule 81(2)(b)(i) covers such contingencies; the Head of Office must consider the claim subject to verification. (Para 10 )

6. Is family pension a statutory right under the Constitution?

Yes, pension and family pension are statutory rights and constitute property under Article 300-A of the Constitution. (Para 9 )

ORDER

The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“8(a) To allow the Original Application with exemplary costs;

(b) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure A-1) issued by the Respondent No.4, impugned order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure A-2) issued by Respondent No.3 and impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (Annex A-3) issued by the Respondent No.5.

(c)To direct the Respondents to incorporate the name of the applicant as the family pensioner in the Pension Payment Order No.435719101162 issued in favour of her late husband, PP. Chandwani, being his legally wedded wife.

(d) To direct the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant with effect from the date of death of her husband, i.e. 22.09.2024.

(e)To direct the respondents to grant interest @12% p.a. on the arrears of family pension from its due date till the same is paid to the applicant.

(f) To pass any other order/s in favour of the applicant as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(g) to award cost of the application.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant claims to be second wife of deceased pensioner Prabhu Pessumal Chandwani, who was a pensioner and passed away on 22.09.2024. It is submitted that late Shri P.P. Chandwani had superannuated as Upper Division Clerk on 30.09.1991 from the office of Central Public Works Department, Bombay Central Electrical Division-IV (Now MCED- II). It is also submitted that the applicant was also an employee with the respondents i.e. Central Public Works Department and she superannuated from service on 31.05.2013. At the time of superannuation of her husband, late Shri P.P. Chandwani, in the year 1991, was married with Smt Maina P. Chandwani. Thus, Smt Maina P. Chandwani, being the legally wedded wife of late Shri P.P. Chandwani, was shown as the family pensioner in the PPO No.435719101162 issued by the respondents.

2.1 Smt Maina P. Chandwani passed away on 12.03.1992 and thereafter late Shri P.P. Chandwani married the applicant on 08.05.1992 i.e. after the death of his first wife. Thus, the applicant attained the status of legally wedded wife of late Shri P.P. Chandwani. Memorandum of marriage dated 14.05.1992 was issued by the Registrar of Marriages, Bombay. It is further submitted that at the time of her marriage with late Shri P.P. _Chandwani, she was working as UDC in the office of CPWD, Mumbai. She submitted her marriage certificate to the office and necessary entry to this effect was made in her servic record.

Accordingly, the name of the applicant was changed in the service record from Miss Ramila Sitaram Swant to that of Smt Ramila Prabhu Chandwani. This is evident from the PPO No.43571/13/0035/8 dated 08.05.2013 in favour of the applicant at the time of superannuation.

2.2 Since her husband late Shri P.P. Chandwani did not inform his Head of Office about the death of his first wife and his remarriage with the applicant on 08.05.1992, the name of late Smt Maina P. Chandwani still reflects as the family pensioner in the PPO of her husband issued on 07.03.2018 pursuant to 7*® CPC. Due to which, the applicant is deprived of family pension, for which, she is legally entitled after the demise of her husband.

Therefore, representation dated 17.02.2025 was submitted to the Pay and Accounts Officer, Mumbai for grant of family pension with all supporting _documents such as death certificate of late Maina P. Chandwani, marriage certificate of the applicant with late Shri P.P. Chandwani, Aadhar Card, Pan Card, death certificate of her husband and pension passbook to enable the respondents to disburse the family pension to the applicant. Copy of representation was forwarded to respondent No.3 also. In response to the aforesaid representation, communication dated 05.03.2025 received from Pay a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top