Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rampati vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 15 April, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00328/2025 Rampati Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00328/2025
Dated, this 15th day of April, 2026
HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Rampati, aged about 54 years, W/o Shri Ram Kumar, R/o -
Kolwa Ibrahimpur, PS - Kotwali Nagar, Mill Area, District -
Raebareli.
...Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Brajendra Pratap Singh
VERSUS
1. Chairman - cum - Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., Sanchar Bhawan, Harishchandra Mathur Lane, Janpath,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., Kanpur.
3. The Accounts Officer (Pay & Allowances), Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., O/o AGM (Admn.) GM (B/A), Kanpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri G. S. Sikarwar
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER HON'BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A) In this case relating to nomination for family pension etc. in service records, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
a) To set aside the letter dated 05.10.2024 issued by the opposite party No. 4, order dated 21.03.2020 and 01.04.2020 issued by the opposite party No. 4,contained as Annexure No. 1, 2 and 3 to this original application.
b) To direct the respondent authority to made nominee to the applicant in service record of her deceased husband Ram Kumar who died on 10.11.2020 and provide entire retiral dues to the petitioner as well as pay family pension being legal heir/wife of deceased employee.
c) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
d) To allow this original application of the applicant with costs.Page 1 of 4
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00328/2025 Rampati Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is the wife of Ram Kumar who was working as Telecom Technician (TT) under the respondents and retired voluntarily from service on 31.01.2020 and died in the same year on 10.11.2020. Aggrieved at the denial of family pension and other retirement dues by the respondents on the ground that the applicant's name was not entered in the service records of her husband, she has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant states that due to marital dispute with her husband, Ram Kumar, in the year 2012 she started living at her parental place and also filed maintenance suit no. 1855/2014 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli and was awarded a monthly amount of Rs. 5,798/- vide the judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 which was being paid to her by the respondents from the salary of her husband. She further states that after the death of her husband, she got the succession certificate dated 27.01.2021 from the office of the District Magistrate, Raebareli and also the certificate of residence dated 23.12.2020 issued by Deputy Collector, Raebareli. The applicant has also attached copy of her Aadhaar Card and the Parivar Register in the OA in support of her claim.
4. The respondents admit that they were making payment of maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court, Raebareli to the applicant from the salary of her husband till his voluntary retirement; however, they contend that as the applicant's name was not mentioned by the deceased employee in Form 3 and as it was not mentioned in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) too, the Page 2 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00328/2025 Rampati Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
applicant is not entitled to any relief. The respondents also state that retirement benefits have been paid already to the employee.
5. Heard both the parties.
6.1 It is well settled that pension is not a bounty to be disbursed at the discretion of the employer. A responsibility is cast upon the employer to satisfy themselves that the family member is eligible for grant of family pension even if the name of the family member does not find mention in the service records. 6.2 Admittedly, the applicant is the wife of Late Ram Kumar; she was awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month vide judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 in Suit No. 1865/2018 by the Principal Judge, family Court, Raebareli which was being paid to her by the respondents from the salary of her husband till his voluntary retirement.
6.3 Given the position above, it is not open to the respondents to deny the applicant the family pension and such other retirement dues as may be payable to the wife of the deceased retired employee solely on the ground that her name was not entered in service records, including Form 3.
6.4 In conclusion, it is held that the applicant is entitled to family pension and such other retirement benefits as may be remaining to be paid in respect of the deceased retired employee. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the OA is allowed and the orders dated 21.03.2020, 01.04.2020 and 05.10.2024 are quashed and set aside.
Page 3 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00328/2025 Rampati Vs U.O.I. & Ors.
7.2 The respondents are directed to pay family pension to the applicant from the date due along with such other retirement dues as may be remaining to be paid in respect of the deceased retired employee (Ram Kumar) within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.3 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. 7.4 Parties shall bear their own costs.
Warij Digitally
signed by
Yadav Warij Yadav (Pankaj Kumar)
Member (A)
Warij
Page 4 of 4