Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Usha Sharma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 26 February, 2026
O.A./585/2016
(Reserved on 24.02.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.585 of 2016
Pronounced on this the 26th Day of February, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Smt. Usha Sharma W/O Lt. Mahatam Vishwakarma R/O House No. shiv
3/163-11-ΚA Sarweshwari Nagar Coloney Nawalpur District Varanasi.
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha
Versus
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. through its General Manager Telecom,
District- Shivpurwa Varanasi.
2. Assistant General Manager Administration, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. Telecom, District- Shivpurwa Varanasi.
3. Account officer (Finance)/ Jan Suchana Adhikari Office of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telecom, District- Shivpurwa Varanasi.
4. Smt. Ugna/Ugni Devi D/O Sri Jagannath R/o Village Velaspur
(Navapura) Post Office Indaso Via Nagara, District-Ballia.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri D.S. Shukla for official respondents
Shri Shri Ram Jatan Yadav for respondent no.4
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
"(a) issue a suitable order or direction quashing impugned letter/ order dated 24.7.2015 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure-13) to the Original application.
(b) issue suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to pay family pension to the petitioner on the death of her husband Mahatam Vishwakarma.
(c) issue suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to make necessary correction in the pension papers as prayed by Late Mahatam Vishwakarma in his Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 1 of 17 O.A./585/2016 Correction application dated 15.3.2015 (Annexure -A9) to the original application.
(d) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(e) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the O.A. are that earlier the husband of the applicant Late Mahatam Vishwakarma was married with respondent no. 4 in the year 1973, and as respondent no.4 could not bear children and the relations were still cordial, they decided to part with consent and she had given an affidavit to permit her husband to freely solemnize new marriage as per his choice vide affidavit dated 10.01.1986 (Annexure A-2 of O.A. and Original copy is attached with the rejoinder as Annexure RA-1). Applicant and her husband belong to the Shudra Community, where divorce with consent is permissible under the law. Respondent no. 4 was unable to give birth due to medical incapability which was the reason her husband left her to marry another lady. As such the Late Mahatam Vishwakarma married the applicant in June 1985, which is claimed to have legal sanctity. After marriage between Mahatam Vishwakarma and the applicant, the birth of 03 daughters and 01 son has taken place. In the service book of Late Mahatam Vishwakarma, name of the applicant as Wife, himself, mother, three daughters and one son as has been mentioned dependents vide declaration of family dependents on 27.09.2005 (Annexure A-5 at page 37 of the O.A.). Further respondent no. 4 had filed the Suit No. 296 of 2009 for dissolution of her marriage since 1983, vide plaint of Suit No. 296 of 2009 (Annexure A-3 of O.A. filed with rejoinder as Annexure RA-2). The suit has been finalized and dissolution of marriage has been decreed by considering the fact that respondent no. 4 and late Mahatam Vishwakarma were divorced and living separately with consent since 1983 as per customs and usages prevailing in the Shudra Community and married with the applicant. (Decree of marriage dissolution is attached as Annexure A-4 of O.A. and photo copy of original copy filed as Annexure RA-3 of rejoinder).
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI Page 2 of 17
O.A./585/2016
The husband of the applicant while retiring on 31.05.2014 has filled up the pension form but due to some misconception the name of respondent no. 4 has been mentioned as wife. After noticing the fact, the official respondents themselves admitted that there is no detail of respondent no. 4 in the service book of the Mahatam Vishwakarma as dependent, so they asked for explanation vide letter dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure A-7 of the O.A. at page 40), which has been replied by the husband of the applicant who requested to mention the name of the applicant as wife in the pension form vide letter dated 12.03.2015, but before taking any further action by the respondents, the husband of the applicant died on 22.04.2015. Respondent no.2 sent letters dated 07.07.2015 and 24.07.2015 demanding succession certificate from the applicant.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is an admitted fact that the husband of the applicant has admitted the fact that the applicant is the wife, whose name should have been read as wife. After the death of the husband of the applicant, asking for succession certificate for releasing family pension to the wife of the deceased employee is unsustainable, in the face of the fact that the details of the dependents is already mentioned in the service book of the deceased Mahatam Vishwakarma, and further has been clarified by the deceased in his explanation. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed with further direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues of her husband to the applicant. It is submitted that on the other hand, after the death of the husband of the applicant, respondent no. 4 came with the contentions that her affidavit is forged, Court's order is forged, plaint filed by her is forged, no divorce was given by her but she has herself filed the documents वसीयत नामा दिनांकित 29.04.2011 showing that deceased employee has already mentioned that 'तलाक-शदु ा पत्नी उगनी दे वी' on page 52 onwards. However, while writing the testament, he wrote that dues should not be paid to his wife Usha Sharma and daughters, which is due to temporary resentment, otherwise no Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 3 of 17 O.A./585/2016 change has been made in the dependents in the service book and in his explanation. Thus, denial of family pension to the legally wedded wife on the grounds of succession certificate is unsustainable, as the pension/family pension is not the debts or securities. The claim of the respondent no. 4 is dependent on the fact that her name was mentioned in the pension paper as well as testamentary paper (in which itself deceased employee said to her as divorcee wife), which cannot be the basis for grant of family pension to the respondent no. 4.
4. Submission of learned counsel representing respondent no.4 is that she never signed upon such document and also did not make any Notary affidavit dated 10.01.1986 as appended as ANNEXURE No.02 to the compilation-II to the aforesaid original application. The same affidavit is without any date and seal of issuance from the notary officer and stamp vendor, thus the same is a forged document and appears to be prepared by fabricating the facts. Therefore the same may not be admissible for proof of the stated facts. It is further submitted that the answering respondent No.04 never filed any such suit no.296 of 2009 as appended as Annexure No.II to the Compilation No-II of the instant Original Application or such any such suit before any court, either at District-Ballia or anywhere. It is also submitted that respondent no.4 never summoned or informed about proceedings of the aforesaid suit, and she also did not appear before the court for any such proceeding. It is also clear from bare perusal of the judgment, as appended as Annexure No.04 to the Compilation No-II of the instant Original Application as that the answering respondent was never examined by the learned court below and the suit has been decided in a very mechanical and casual manner. Hence the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 may not be sustainable in any manner in the eye of law. The answering respondent has only come to know about this judgment after receiving the same through notice of this original application. Hence the same has not been yet challenged till date. Therefore the same judgment may not be admissible in any manner in the eye of law. It is further Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 4 of 17 O.A./585/2016 submitted that as per the service record of Late Mahatam Vishwakarma, the name of the answering respondent is recorded and found intact in his service book. It is submitted that at the time of filing of the Application for Pension, Form-5, (under Rule 58
(i) 2 (ii), he himself filled and mentioned, the name of answering respondent on 21.01.2014 in Prpatra-A (under Rule-5), nomination for family pension, Form -4, Form No.-3- particulars of family, Praarup-A, Form of Nomination, Form-1 (vide Rule-12)-Form for appointment of Beneficiary /Benficiaries (under Rule-12) and Form-1, Nomination for Death-cum-retirement gratuity, for getting service benefits. Therefore the Documents appended as Annexure No.0-5 & 06 to the Compilation No-II of the instant Original Application appear be forged and fabricated document and the same may not be admissible as valid papers for getting the claimed benefits by the applicant in any manner in the eye of in to law. Therefore the same not be taken may account for proof of the stated facts.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that vide registered will dated 29.04.2011 the deceased, Late Mahatam Vishwkarma has already declared in paragraph No.02 of the will that Km. Smriti, Km. Sweta, Km. Kriti and Smt. Usha Sharma will not get any benefits from his service benefits He has given entire rights of his service benefits to his daughter Shikha Sharma born from Smt. Ugni alias Ugna Devi. It is argued that Smt. Ugna Devi is illiterate and duly married wife of late Mahatam Vishwakarma. Smt Usha Sharma is working in Agriculture Department (Government Department) and during course of her service she was illegally living with Late Mahatam Vishwakarma, and for justifying her claim she filed the aforesaid Suit no. 296 of 2009 before learned court at District-Ballia and obtained ex-parte illegal decree and judgment dated 20.10.2010 under section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after passing of more than 32 years of marriage of Smt. Ugna Devi and she also succeeded in tempering the service records of Sri Mahatam Vishwakaram by playing fraud and concealing the material facts. Thus on the basis of such documents Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 5 of 17 O.A./585/2016 the pension and pensionary benefits given to the answering respondent No.04 may not be stopped.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the official respondents is that after the death of Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma Smt. Usha Sharma (the applicant) preferred a claim for the payment of pension etc. Smt. Usha Sharma was informed to produce a succession certificate of a competent court in her favour but she failed. The need to ask for a succession certificate arose as Smt. Usha Sharma could not prove herself to be the legally wedded wife of Late Mahatam Vishwakarma. The legally wedded wife of Late Mahatam Vishwakarma is Smt. Ugni Devi. The papers filed in support of the claim of Usha Sharma were not reliable and satisfactory and the BSNL is not competent to weigh the evidence, therefore, a succession certificate was required.
7. Learned counsel for the official respondents further submit that Smt. Usha Sharma is not recorded as the wife of Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma. The applicant herself has filed so many doubtful and self contradictory papers. A letter to Smt. Usha Sharma by the Assistant General Manager (Admn.) reveals that during the lifetime of Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma, Smt. Usha Sharma had made an application dated 10-11-2014 as a complaint regarding nomination of Smt. Ugni Devi as wife. It is also stated that the Annexure A-7 filed by the applicant is also an important paper. This letter was written to late Mahatam Vishwakarma by the Assistant General Manager (Admn.) and explanation was called for regarding the nomination of Smt. Ugni Devi for pension and family pension. The Annexure A-9 is completely doubtful and forged papers. It is not reliable. The Signature of Mahatam Vishwakarma seems to be forged on it, through this paper explanation to Annexure A-7 has been prepared by someone but not by Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma. It was not submitted by Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma, there was no need to Notarise it, therefore it is absolutely incorrect to say that the applicant has been nominated by the deceased Mahatam Vishwakarma as his Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 6 of 17 O.A./585/2016 wife. The letters sent to the applicant or the letters, applications of the applicant are not conclusive proof of the fact that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of late Mahatam Vishwakarma. Annexure A-3 of the original application is a judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ballia in O.S. No. 294 of 2009 dated 18-7-2009, through this judgment marriage between Smt. Ugni Devi and Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma was dissolved on 20-10-2010. Before 20-10-2010 Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma was not eligible for the second marriage. The applicant has not given the date or year of her marriage with Sri Mahatam Vishwakarma but the date of birth of her daughter is 8-4-1988 and seeing this date of birth it may be presumed that the alleged illegal marriage would have taken place prior to 1988 when the legally wedded wife Smt. Ugni Devi was alive and marriage between Smt. Ugani Devi and Mahatam Vishwakarma was not dissolved, therefore from the judgment filed by the applicant in OS No.294/2009/18-7-2009, the marriage of the applicant cannot be said to be a legal marriage and as such it is proved that the applicant is not a legally wedded wife of Late Mahatam Vishwakarma. The allegation of the applicant that the payment is not being made to her on flimsy ground is absolutely false and baseless. The rectification of the nomination in any paper is not so flexible. Unless it is proved that any mistake in service record of an employee is bonafide and the employee himself moves application for any rectification, the department cannot make any alteration. Late Mahatam Vishwakarma even after receiving the letter did not appear for rectification. A doubtful letter was produced and therefore the applicant was asked to file a succession certificate of a competent court of law. Mahatam Vishwakarma was a Hindu and Smt. Ugni Devi was also a Hindu. Both were governed by the Hindu Marriage Act and according to law the marriage of a Hindu comes to an end only after divorce by the competent court of law. Custom of caste cannot override the law. It is stated that Annexure 14 is not a succession certificate. In this certificate it has been clearly mentioned that "यह सच ू ना विभागीय Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 7 of 17 O.A./585/2016 उपयोग के लिए भेजी जा रही है । किसी विवाद की दशा मे मान्य नहीं है । गर्वमेन्ट सेक्योरिटीज के अर्न्तगत निर्गत केवल पॉच हजार रूपये तक मान्य।" As such the applicant cannot call it a succession certificate.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws in support of the claim of the applicant:
(I) Union of India Vs. S. Sathikumari Amma [LAWS (KER) 2025 - 1-109 which has dealt with the issue as to 'whether family pension would come within the purview of property or estate of a deceased employee and whether an employee struck off the names of his wife and other dependants from service records during the subsistence of a valid marriage' and then observed that :
10.) In Jodh Singh v. Union of India [(1980)4 SCC 306], the Honourable Supreme Court observed that, what is not payable during the lifetime of the deceased, over which he has no power of disposition, cannot form part of his estate. It is the event of his death that provides eligibility qualification for claiming special family pension. The question involved in Jodh Singh's case (supra) was that, whether a special family pension awarded by the President to the widow of a deceased officer who belong to Air Force could be the subject matter of testamentary disposition by the deceased in his lifetime. The relevant paragraphs of Jodh Singh's case reads thus:
" 11. It was, however, said that not all widows are entitled to special family pension but only the dependent wife who becomes widow on the death of an officer alone becomes eligible for pension and in this case the deceased had not shown his wife as one of his dependents but on the contrary the parents, the sisters and the brothers were shown as dependents of the officer. Rule 74 envisages a special family pension to the widow, a special children allowance to his legitimate children or dependents' pension to his parents, brothers or sisters. To each one of them, if he or she qualifies for special family pension, the benefit is admissible. Rule 75 envisages ordinary family pension to widow and legitimate children of the deceased officer. Rule 79 confers discretion on the President to grant a pension and/or gratuity to a widow who may not be eligible under Rule 74 or Rule 75 because she was separate from the husband at the time of his death. Thus, whether a widow has qualified for a special family pension, gratuity or ordinary family pension is a matter to be determined by the President. If the President is satisfied that the widow is eligible for pension, she cannot be denied the benefit by some other dependents of the deceased claiming that instead of the Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 8 of 17 O.A./585/2016 widow he or she should have been held eligible for special family pension. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the deceased had shown his wife as his dependent or not if the President is satisfied that she as the widow of the deceased officer was eligible for special family pension.
12. The real controversy is whether a special family pension admissible to a widow in her capacity as widow could ever form a part of the estate of the deceased which could be disposed of by testamentary disposition? Special family pension is payable to the widow on the death of the officer. It is not payable in his lifetime. What is not payable during lifetime of the deceased over which he has no power of disposition cannot form part of his estate. It is the event of his death that provides the eligibility qualification for claiming special family pension. Such qualifying event which can only occur on the death of the deceased and which event confers some monetary benefit on someone other than the deceased albeit related to the deceased, cannot form part of the estate of the deceased which . he can dispose of by testamentary disposition. Therefore, it is unquestionably established that special family pension sanctioned to the widow of an officer of the Indian Air Force by the President of India under Rule 74 of the Rules could not be subject-matter of testamentary disposition."
(11.) In Smt. Violet Issaac and others v. Union of India and others [(1991) 1 SCC 725)], the Honourable Apex Court held that an employee cannot dispose the family pension by testamentary disposition as family pension is not a part of his estate. The decision in Jodh Singh's case (supra) was followed by the Apex Court in Violet Issac's case (supra).
(12.) In Nitu v. Sheela Rani and Ors. [2016 KHC 6646], the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that, family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same by his will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same.
(13.) In Radhamony Amma v. State of Kerala [2001 KHC 661], a Division Bench of this Court opined that, all members of family are entitled to family pension on the death of Government employee. Wife cannot be excluded from receiving a pension by a Government employee. The family pension is not a part of estate of the deceased so as to allow him to make a decision as to whom it has to be given.
(14.) In Salma Beevi v. Administrative Officer, Cochin & Ors [2014(3) KHC 820], a Division Bench of this Court made it clear that, family pension is neither debt nor security of the deceased pensioner and hence, succession certificate cannot be insisted upon for receiving family pension.
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI Page 9 of 17
O.A./585/2016
(15.) In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Jodh Singh's case (supra), and Violet Issac's case (supra), it is clear that family pension is not an estate or property of the employee. Therefore, an employee cannot make a representation that his legally wedded wife or other dependants are not entitled to claim the family pension. Family pension unlike the other pensionary benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc, could not be a subject matter of testamentary disposition by the employee during his lifetime. In other words, an employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another nor he can nominate some other person for receiving family pension other than the one who is entitled to it. An employee cannot exclude his wife or children from receiving the family pension on his death, by making an application in this regard.
(16.) Family pension is not a debt or security and therefore, the executive authorities cannot insist the production of succession certificate for the grant of family pension.
(17.) Now coming back to the facts of the instant case, wherein the employee made a representation to the postal authorities stating that the name of his wife and daughter should be excluded from the service records so as to disentitle them from getting family pension on his death. (18.) The stand of Union of India before the Tribunal and before us was that the deceased employee has submitted an application to strike off the name of the applicant from his service records and he does not intend to nominate his wife and children as the legal heirs.
(19.) The Central Administrative Tribunal noticing the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court allowed the original application with interest.
We do not find any illegality much less fallacy in the impugned order. O.P(CAT)191/2017 fails and is dismissed."
(II) Salma Beevi V.A. Vs. Administrative Office [ LAWS (KER) 2014-7-222]
12.) THE family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed to provide relief to the widow and children of a deceased employee or pensioner. In Jodh Singh v. Union of India and Another: 1980 KHC 760: 1980 (4) SCC 306:
1980 SCC (L & S). 549: AIR 1980 SC 2081: 1980 (41) FLR 347: 1980 Lab IC 1275, the Apex Court, interpreting Regulation 74 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, which deals with sanctioning of special family pension to the widow of an officer of the Indian Air Force, held that the special family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 10 of 17 O.A./585/2016 the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow. Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject -matter of testamentary disposition. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment read thus;
" 9. Pension is a retirement benefit. It is admissible under the relevant rules on superannuation. It is payable on superannuation to the employee himself during his lifetime after - retirement. Special family pension is not admissible to the employee but to the specified members of the employee's family and that too in the event of his death while in service or after his retirement as provided in the Regulations. It is in the nature of a compensation because the death was due to or hastened by either a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Air Force service or the aggravation by Air Force service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during Air Force service, etc. (see Rule 74). If death is not referable to any of the events mentioned in Rule 74, special family pension is not admissible. To compensate for death on account of hazards of service rendering dependents destitute that benefit of special family pension is conferred on certain persons having a certain status arising out of and directly attributable to relation with the deceased. Special family pension under Rule 74 is admissible, amongst others, to widow of an officer. It is not that the deceased gets pension or earns special family pension. It is the untimely death of the deceased, the process of death having been hastened or accelerated by the hazards of service that the widow who is rendered destitute is granted special family pension. Whether the widow qualifies for special family pension is to be determined by the sanctioning authority, the President in this case. The special family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow.
10. Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition."
In Smt. Violet Issaac and Others v. Union of India: 1991 KHC 157: 1991 (1) SCC 725: 1991 (1) KLT 579: 1991 SCC (L&S) 551: 1991 (16) ATC 491: 1991 (1) CLR 704:
1991 (2) LLN 76, the Apex Court, interpreting Rule 801 Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 11 of 17 O.A./585/2016 of the Railway Family Pension Rules, 1964, held that, the family pension is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. Since, the rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Paragraph 4 of the judgment reads thus;
"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 died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years, an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married, whichever is earlier. The Rules do not provide for payment of Family Pension to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway Administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition."
(13.) GOING by Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the Family Pension is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee or pensioner. The rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead it designates the persons who are entitled to receive family pension. Thus, no other person Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 12 of 17 O.A./585/2016 except those designated under the rules is entitled to receive family pension. The rules confer monetary benefit on the widow and children of the deceased employee or pensioner, but the employee or the pensioner, as the case may be, has no title to it and it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Family pension payable on the death of an employee or pensioner, who is governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, to the widow and children of the deceased employee or Jensioner is neither a debt nor a security of that deceased in respect of which succession certificate can be applied for under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925. Production of succession certificate cannot be insisted upon for receiving family pension as it is neither a debt nor a security of the deceased employee or pensioner.
(14.) FOR the reasons stated above, we cannot sustain the view taken by the learned Single Judge that, the appellant will have to produce succession certificate as required by the 1st and 2nd respondents in case she has to obtain family pension at the full rate and also to receive arrears of family pension in full. In the result, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
We further hold that, the entitlement of the appellant to receive full family pension depends upon the fact whether the pensioner is survived by any eligible child, in terms of Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, out of his wedlock with late Haleema. If the pensioner is survived by any such eligible child the entitlement of the appellant would be limited to 50% of the family pension and she would be entitled to receive full family pension only on the family pension ceasing to be payable to such eligible child out of the wedlock of the pensioner with late Haleema, on such child attaining the age of 25 years, getting married, starts earning his/her livelihood, etc., as provided under Rule 54(6)."
(III) Jodh Singh Vs. Union of India and others (1980(4) SCC
306) [Page 19-22 1 which has been discussed above in Union of India Vs. S. Sathikumari Amma.
(IV) Voilet Issac Vs. Union of India and others [LAWS(SC) 1991-2- 70] which has been discussed above two case laws.
(V) Mahesh Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others [CWP No. 2269 of 2024 decided on 17.09.2025, the Hon'ble High Court has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Radha Devi Vs. C.G.M. 13 Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Radha Devi Vs. Chief General Manager and Others, Special Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 13 of 17 O.A./585/2016 Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.2365 of 2022, while exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed respondents to pay the family pension to second wife, who admittedly had solemnised marriage with the employee concerned during subsistence of first marriage. Though this Court is fully conscious of the fact that afore judgment has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court while exercising power under Article 142 and as such, same cannot be used as a precedent, but yet same has been taken note in the instant judgment because in the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner who was seeking family pension, after the death of his husband, had also solemnised marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage and Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of long cohabitation inter se petitioner and her husband in that case observed that on account of long cohabitation, they have attained the status of spouse, which entitles petitioner in that case to seek family pension. Relevant Para of afore judgment reads as under:
"The facts of the case, as noted above, are rather peculiar, for it is not disputed that Radha Devi had continued to live as a spouse with Jay Narayan Maharaj, after the death of his first wife, Ram Sawari Devi @ Sawari Devi, in 1984.
Position of Radha Devi as a 'spouse' is not really disputed as such by the respondent, SECL, except on the ground that her marriage was solemnized with Jay Narayan Maharaj during the subsistence of his first marriage.
We would, in these circumstances, having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and in order to do complete justice, observe that Jay Narayan Maharaj and Radha Devi had lived and cared for each other, post the death of Ram Sawari Devi @ Sawari Devi on 20.04.1984. Radha Devi at the old age should not be denied the 'status of spouse', which entitles.her her to receive family pension. This would help her live with dignity and help her financially. In view of the aforesaid position, we exèrcise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct that Radha Devi shall be paid family pension with effect from 01.01.2010 till today on or before 31.12.2024. She will receive family pension till her death.
Radha Devi will furnish all details and particulars to the Manager, SECL, and complete formalities within a period of eight weeks from today.
In case the payment of arrears is not made within the said period, the respondent, SECL, will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.
Digitally
MADHU signed by
KUMARI MADHU
KUMARI Page 14 of 17
O.A./585/2016
Recording the aforesaid, the appeal
is allowed and disposed of."
(VI) Radha Devi Vs. Chief General Manager [ WPS No. 5071 of 2012) dismissed on 06.11.2017 by Hon'ble Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court as well as Writ Appeal No. 90 of 2018 preferred against the order dated 06.11.2017 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 13.08.2018 but the SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(VII) Haruli Devi Vs. Union of India and others O.A. No. 256 of 2020 decided by Hon'ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow on 30.11.2021 which has been confirmed in the Writ Petition No. 1744 of 2025 by dismissing the writ petition on
14.02.2025. In the aforesaid case, the fact involved was that the husband of the applicant had married her after his first wife absconded and his marriage with his first wife dissolved on 20.03.1972 and the O.A. was allowed with the direction to the applicant to submit the requisite documents, if any, after which the respondents were directed to grant family pension to the applicant.
(VIII) M. Govindaraju Vs. K. Munisami Gounder(D) and others [AIR 1997 SC 10] wherein it has been held as under:-
(3.) The High Court in illegitimising the appellant, seems to have overlooked the caste factor which would have a great bearing in order to establish the relationship between the parties. They were Gounders, necessarily failing in the classification of Shudras. Hindu law is clear on the subject that if a Shudra woman is turned out of the house by her husband, or she wilfully abandons him and is not pursued to be brought back as wife a divorce in fact takes place, sometimes regulated by custom, and then each spouse is entitled to re-arrange his/her life in marriage with other marrying partners. Walking out of Pappammal from the house of her first husband Koola Gounder was irretrievable and irreversible, for it is in evidence that neither of them took interest in each other thereafter. The divorce was thus complete. Paternity of the appellant having, not been denied, he was treated as a son of his father. We would, therefore, think that the trial Court was right in giving him the status as a son of his father. In doing so, the trial Couri rightly took in aid the Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 15 of 17 O.A./585/2016 fact that in recognition of that status, the appellant was given his first cousin in marriage i.e. Munsamis sisters daughter. That fact was corroborative of a valid acknowledgement of paternity and legitimacy. If the people, especially the relatives, had treated and acknowledged the appellant as the legitimate, son of his father by forging a bond of matrimony of the sort aforementioned, it is a strong piece of evidence to hold that the appellant was a legitimate offspring of his father. The High Court thus clearly fell in error in illegitimising him. We reverse that view.
9. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record including the written submission filed by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. First, I would like to deal with the case laws that the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon in favour of his case. The case of Santhikumar Amma (supra) dealing with the cases of Jodh Singh (supra) and Voilet Issac (supra) has held that succession certificate is not required to establish the eligibility for family pension. The case of Salma Beevi V.S. (supra) has also held that no succession certificate is required for family pension and states that Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules does not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead it designates the persons who are entitled to receive family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the rules is entitled to receive family pension. While dealing with the case of Radha Devi (supra), the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mahesh Ram (supra) has observed that the second wife, the marriage with whom was solemnised by the deceased employee during the subsistence of the first wife who died subsequently, must have obtained status of wife due to long cohabitation. In the case of Haruli Devi (supra), the husband of the applicant had married her after his first wife absconded and his marriage with his first wife dissolved on 20.03.1972. The case of M. Govindaraju (supra) is regarding legitimization of the son by accepting the Shudra divorce ritual as per which if a Shudra woman is turned out of the house by her husband, or she wilfully abandons him and is not pursued to be brought back as wife a divorce in fact takes place, Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 16 of 17 O.A./585/2016 sometimes regulated by custom, and then each spouse is entitled to re-arrange his/her life in marriage with other marrying partners.
11. The facts of the present case, on the other hand, are that the applicant was living with Late Mahatam Vishwakarma and had children who have been shown to be dependent family members.
Nowhere it is clear that the applicant was legally wedded wife of the Late pensioner, and actually, late Mahatam Vishwakarma had named respondent no.4 as wife at the final stage of his services which the applicant had also opposed. Further, late Mahatam Vishwakarma has neither informed his employer about break in marriage with respondent no.4 nor informed the fact that he has married the applicant after break of marriage with respondent no.4. Analysis of the entire facts of this case, and the case laws as well in this respect, does not lend support to the claim of the applicant and there is no basis to consider the relief claimed by the applicant in this O.A. Under these circumstances, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
12. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) Member-A Madhu Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 17 of 17