A mother who has remarried is not entitled to family pension benefits as per Regulation 70 of Pension Regulations, 2008, which prioritizes the father when a son has nominated him as the pension beneficiary.

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in OA No.178/2023 by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), having rejected the prayer of the petitioner for granting family pension and accepting the contention of the authorities for granting pension to the respondent No.5 herein.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th respondent, and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that her son, Abhijith J. A. joined the Indian Army in the year 19.09.2017 and he said to be expired in an accident on 16.11.2022. The Authorities, respondents 1 to 3 said to be granted pensionary benefits in favour of the respondent No.5 who is said to be the father of the deceased and husband of the petitioner. The deceased is said to be nominated respondent No.5 in the service records and also for other benefits like AGI Death benefits, Death-Cum- Retirement Gratuity etc. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for granting the above said pensionary benefits to the petitioner who is the mother of the deceased Abhijith. After inquiry and hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the contention of the petitioner in part and granted 50% of the DCRG to the petitioner. However, the request of the petitioner for granting family pension has been denied on the ground that the deceased was said to be nominated the Respondent No.5 (father) in the service records. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal committed error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner wherein as per the Regulation 70 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part -I (2008) (hereinafter referred to as “Pension Regulations, 2008”), an ordinary family pension payable, if both parents are there, only the mother will get the pension first and after the death of the mother, father will get the pension by re-grant. Therefore, this aspect of regulation was not considered by the Tribunal, and contended that the respondent No.5 is said to be obtained an ex-parte decree from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in OP No.867/2011. That itself is not a ground for granting pension to the respondent No.5 by the Tribunal. In the nomination mentioned in the service records, a nominee will only the receiver of the pension and the nomination will not confer any beneficial interest to the nominee. Therefore, it is contended that merely mentioning the name of respondent No.5 in the service record as nominee, does not entitle the respondent No.5 to receive the pension. Even if he is referred as a nominee, the petitioner is entitled to get the pension as per Regulation 70 of the Pension Regulations, 2008. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Senguptha and Others [2009 KHC 5207]. Hence, the petitioner is prayed for allowing the writ petition and set aside order of the Tribunal and directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to grant family pension to the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 supported the order of the Tribunal, contending that, even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Succession Act prevails