Under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, remarriage of a widow terminates her eligibility for family pension, and a subsequent divorce does not restore this eligibility, unless the widow falls under the specific 'childless widow' exception and meets the prescribed income criteria.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“..........To call for the records comprised in the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing Memo No.C/FP/REGRANT/RG/2018-2019, dated 25.06.2021 at Chennai and consequently issue a direction to the respondents to restore the family pension that was availed by the applicant on the demise of her husband E. Parasuraman who was in the service of the respondents and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice”.

Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The Applicant submits that she is the wife of one E. Parasuraman, who was working as a Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts. He voluntarily retired from service on 01.01.1987. The said Parasuraman passed away on 09.04.2010, and upon his demise the applicant became entitled to family pension under the relevant provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, she was drawing family pension. Subsequently, the applicant remarried one Manoharan on 03.02.2012. However, owing to disputes arising out of the said remarriage, the said Manoharan deserted the applicant on 05.05.2015. Thereafter, the said Manoharan filed a Divorce Petition before the Sub Court at Ponneri. The marriage was ultimately dissolved by a decree passed in H.M.O.P. No.305/2017 by order dated 07.02.2018. The children born out of the first wedlock are not residing with the applicant. Therefore, after the dissolution of the second marriage by a decree of divorce, the applicant submits that her status stands restored to that of a widow, and consequently she is entitled to restoration of family pension. In this regard, the applicant submitted a representation to the respondents seeking restoration of family pension. However, the respondents, by the impugned order dated 25.06.2021, rejected the claim of the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking appropriate relief.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the second respondent failed to appreciate that the applicant is not presently a remarried widow but a divorced woman, and upon such divorce her status reverts to that of a widow of the deceased employee. It was further submitted that there is no specific provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which disentitles a divorced widow from receiving family pension.

The learned counsel further contended that after the divorce, the applicant’s status as the widow of her deceased first husband remains intact and unclaimed by any other person. It was also submitted that the applicant, being the first legal heir of the deceased employee, is entitled to family pension upon the demise of her husband, and denial of the same would be contrary to the Government’s policy of promoting social justice and empowerment of women. It was further argued that the applicant had been receiving family pension after the death of her first husband until the time of her remarriage, and therefore the principle of status quo ante ought to be restored after the dissolution of the second marriage.

The learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order wrongly relies upon Rule 54(23) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements, including the decision, dated 10.09.2019 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2822/2016. Accordingly, he prayed that the relief sought in the present O.A. be granted.

In contrast, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of the applicant and relied upon the averments made in the reply statement. He submitted that the applicant was receiving family pension after the death of her first husband