Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3709

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Member (J), Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Krishan Kumar Gaba – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No.3102/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sarika Khandelwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Yadav

Nominee holds pension/gratuity as trustee; legal spouse's claim prevails over nomination under succession laws.

Headnote:The case involves CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 53 governing nominations for death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension. Applicant, claiming as surviving spouse of deceased retiree, supported by marriage documents, death certificate, and Surviving Member Certificate from Revenue Department, seeks quashing of rejection order and release of pensionary benefits. Court finds nomination does not confer ownership rights; nominee acts as trustee, benefits subject to succession laws. Legal spouse's claim authenticated by authorities prevails over nomination absent contradictory evidence. Key issue: Whether nomination supersedes legally wedded spouse's entitlement to family pension. Court holds nominee receives funds as agent/trustee; amount forms part of estate governed by succession laws, not testamentary disposition. Relies on precedents establishing nomination simplifies payments but does not override legal heirs' rights; Tribunal has jurisdiction without requiring civil court declaration. Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to process and release retiral dues including pension upon verification of sole surviving member certificate and indemnity bond, within two months, with interest if delayed.

Judgement Key Points

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

What is the entitlement of a surviving spouse to family pension when the deceased employee nominated other individuals for death-cum-retirement gratuity and arrears of pension?

What is the legal standing of a nominee in relation to the legal heirs for receiving pensionary benefits?

Can a surviving spouse be relegated to civil court to prove their marital status for receiving pensionary benefits when a survival member certificate from a competent authority is provided?

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 the wife of the applicant, Pushpa Kumari Puri, retired from service on July 31, 2020, and passed away on April 2, 2022.

2.1 The applicant submitted a request to the authorities for family pension. He claimed that he married late Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri on 25.08.1989 at Arya Samaj Mandir. He also referenced a note dated May 10, 1989, allegedly written by Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri in her own handwriting. He also cited Smt. Pushpa Kumari's death certificate, which mentioned applicant’s name as the spouse of the deceased. Additionally, the applicant has relied upon the certificate issued by the SDM (SW) (Annexure A-17) in support of his contention.

2.2 The applicant's counsel submitted that although the respondents, in paragraph 4 of their reply, specifically stated the deceased employee nominated her brother, Mr. Yash Pal Puri and her sister-in-law, Mrs. Asha Puri, to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity; however, no annexure or document pertaining to Mrs. Pushpa Kumari has been produced to substantiate this.

2.3 The applicant relies on a certificate issued by the SDM (South-West), filed as Annexure A-7.

2.4 In support of applicant’s claim, learned counsel relied upon Annexure A-16, which is the Surviving Member Certificate bearing No. 90660000201454, issued by the Revenue Department, Government of NCT of Delhi on October 26, 2023, which clearly records the applicant as the husband of the late Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri and certifies him as the sole surviving member of her family. The certificate is also displayed on the notice board outside the Office of the District Magistrate, Kapashera, Delhi, reflecting the issuance of the Surviving Member Certificate and the Jivit Ashrit Praman Patra.

2.5 Attention is also drawn to Annexure A-5, namely Pension Payment Order No. 28062/05/0179/4, wherein Late Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri is identified as the applicant's wife. Additionally, the PPO displays photographs of both the deceased employee and the applicant.

2.6 Applicant had brought on record several documents confirming the marriage of the Applicant with the deceased namely:

1. Marriage Certificate

2. Note by Late (Smt.) Pushpa Kumari Puri certifying the marriage.

3. Admit Card of Late (Smt.) Pushpa Kumari Puri when she was admitted at AIIMS, Delhi for her treatment.

4. Letter from Central Pension Accounting Office to Manager of Syndicate Bank and Pension Payment Order.

5. Death Certificate of Late (Smt.) Pushpa Kumari Puri.

6. Applicant's Pension Payment Order.

7. Affidavit of Shri R. S. Manchanda.

8. Affidavit of Smt. Shakuntala Manchanda.

9. Surviving Member Certificate.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a document wherein the deceased employee had nominated her brother and sister-in-law for payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). He al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document