Judgment

K.N.SINGH, J.

(1) LEAVE granted

(2) WHETHER family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will by the deceased employee during his lifetime, is the question involved in this appeal.

(3) BRIEFLY, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Issac Alfred was employed in the Railway Workshop, Jagadhri as a Skilled Mechanic, Tool Shop, he died in harness on October 16, 1984. On his death a dispute arose between Mrs Violet Issac, widow of the deceased Railway employee, his sons, daughters and Elic Alfred brother of the deceased regarding family pension, gratuity and other emoluments, payable by the Railway administration. Smt Violet Issac, widow of the deceased employee made an application before the competent Railway authority for the grant of family pension and for payment of gratuity and other dues to her, her four sons and one daughter, who are appellants 2 to 6. The Railway authorities did not pay any amount to the appellants as an injunction order had been issued by the Sub-Judge, I Class, Jagadhri in Civil Suit No. 365 of 1985 filed by Elic Alfred, brother of the deceased employee, restraining the appellants from claiming or receiving any amount which were to the credit of the deceased Railway employee towards CTD account, gratuity, family pension and other dues. It appears that the relations between late Issac Alfred and his widow Smt Violet Issac and the children were not cordial, as a result of which he had made nomination in favour of his brother and further he had executed a will dated 9/09/1984 in favour of Elic Alfred bequeathing all his properties to him including the family pension, gratuity etc. When the appellants raised claim for family pension and other dues before the Railway authorities, Elic Alfred filed Civil Suit No. 365 of 1985 for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from receiving or claiming any monetary benefits from the Railway administration. In his suit Elic Alfred had pleaded that in view of the will, his deceased brothers widow and children were not entitled to any benefit from the Railway authorities, instead he was entitled to the deceaseds estate including the right to receive family pension and other dues. The civil court issued an injunction order restraining the appellants from receiving any amount from the Railway authorities as a result of which the Railway administration did not pay any amount to them. The appellants, thereupon, made an application before the central Administrative tribunal, Chandigarh for the issue of a direction for the release of the amounts on account of gratuity, group insurance, provident fund, CTD account, and family pension. The appellants pleaded that the will relied upon by Elic Alfred was a forged one and Elic Alfred was not entitled to receive pensionary benefits. On an application made by the appellants the suit pending before the civil court was also transferred to the tribunals file. The tribunal by its order dated 11/12/1989 held that since the dispute related to rival claims based on title arising from relationship in one case and from a will in the other, it has no jurisdiction to decide the same. The tribunal further directed for the transfer of the civil suit to the civil court for trial in accordance with law. The appellants have challenged the order of the tribunal by means of the present appeal.

(4) THE dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident fund, family pension and other allowances, but this court while issuing notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension. We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only. Family Pension Rules, 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway employee. Rule 801 provides that family pension shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no widow/widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have