Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Krishan Kumar Gaba – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Key Points: - The applicant sought to quash an order and direct the release of family pension and other funds to the applicant's deceased wife (!) (!) (!) . - The applicant's wife retired on July 31, 2020, and passed away on April 2, 2022 [2]. - The applicant claimed to be the legally wedded husband of the deceased and provided several documents as proof, including a marriage certificate, a note by the deceased, a death certificate, and a surviving member certificate issued by the SDM (SW) and Revenue Department (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The respondents stated that the deceased employee had nominated her brother and sister-in-law for death-cum-retirement gratuity and arrears of pension, and the applicant was never nominated (!) (!) . - The respondents argued that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the applicant's marital status without a civil court decree or succession certificate (!) . - The court referenced Rule 53 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, regarding nominations (!) . - The court held that a nomination does not confer beneficial interest on the nominee; the nominee acts as a trustee or agent to receive the funds, which then become part of the deceased's estate subject to succession laws (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court cited Supreme Court judgments in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, Vishin Khanchandani v. Vidya Khanchandani, and Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta to support the interpretation of a nominee's role (!) (!) (!) . - The court also referred to Jodh Singh V. Union of India & Anr. and Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors, which dealt with family pension not being disposable by will as it does not form part of the employee's estate (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court found no cogent evidence to disprove the applicant's status as the legally wedded husband and stated that the deceased's use of "Kumari" and her father's name did not alter her marital status (!) . - The impugned office order dated 20.01.2024 was quashed and set aside (!) . - The respondents were directed to process the applicant's case for retiral dues, release all funds including pensions, subject to verification of the sole survival certificate, and obtain an indemnity bond from the applicant (!) . - Compliance was to be made within two months, failing which interest at the GPF rate would be applicable (!) .None
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's marriage and surviving spouse status supported by certificates. (Para 2) |
| 2. respondents rely on nomination forms excluding applicant. (Para 3) |
| 3. nomination does not override legal spouse's pension rights. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. quash rejection; release benefits with verification. (Para 8) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-
“a) To Quash the impugned order No SKV No 1/SN/2023/3209-3210 Dated 20.01.2024
b) Direct the Respondents to release all the funds/monies including family pension and the deposits payable to the Applicant's wife from the department with interest.
c) For release of family pension within time with interest.
d) Cost of litigation be directed to be paid by the respondents, the quantum of which this Hon'ble Tribunal may decide keeping in view the mental agony of the applicant.
e) Allow Applicant to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the aforesaid grounds if required.
f) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present case pertains to grant of a family pension as
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
