Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

The Original Application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“.i. Set-Aside the office order F.No.4- 2006/2021/Estt-II/CompNo.231877/3004 dated 10/15-07-2024 (ANNEXURE-A.8) as arbitrary, unjust, unfair and illegal and consequently. Issue appropriate directions to the Respondents to consider and extend the benefit of the Court order passed by the XXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bangalore in P &S.C.No.594 of 2021 to consider the case of the applicant for Pension under the Family pension scheme as per the law and grant all consequential benefits. And ii. Pass any other order or direction or any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay in administration.”

2. The reliefs are claimed based on the following grounds:

“1. As can be seen from the above facts, the applicant has produced the death certificate and family tree issued by the Government of Karnataka to show that the applicant is the only legal successor for the Family Pension benefits. The Respondents without considering the fact and the circumstance of the applicant directed her to produce marriage certificate or decree from court to the effect.

2. The applicant left with no other alternative approach the XXXIV Additional city Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore by filing a P & SC, No. 594 of 2021. The applicant has made the Respondents as party to the application. The Court after considering all the points raised by both the parties was pleased to allow the application on 23.11.2022. The Court in its order has pointed out that the will dated 05.12.2012 execute by 'Marakani Hariprakasa Rao has stated that the Petitioner is his legally wedded wife'. The Court order to Issue Succession certificate in favour of the Petitioner to get the family Pension of her deceased husband Dr. M. Hariprakasa Rao held with employer of her deceased husband i.e., 1st Respondent (I.C.A.R). The applicant has informed the Respondents by way of representation. The Respondents have not challenged the above order to the knowledge of the applicant and the order has attained finality. The Respondents without looking into the factual position of law has rejected the claim of the applicant without any justification.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme court has clearly stated that the Court has commented that though such marriage are illegal as per the provision of the Act, they are not immoral and hence a financially dependent woman cannot be denied maintenance on this ground. This clearly shows that the Respondent has mechanically disposed of the application.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also said that most significantly, the Act gives a very wide interpretation to the term "domestic relationship" as to take it outside the confines of marital relationship, and even include live- in relationship in the nature of marriage within the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the Act. Therefore, women in live-in relationship are also entitled to all the reliefs given in the Act. The XXXIV Additional city Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore has clearly stated that the Petitioner is legally wedded wife as per the will. The Hon'ble Supreme court has extended the benefit by stating that even live- in relationship also to be considered for all the benefit. The Respo