Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Girija Alias Girijamma vs Indian Institute Of Horticulture ... on 23 March, 2026
1
O.A.No.170/00656/24
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00656/2024
Order Reserved on: 10.3.2026
Date of Order: 23.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Girija @ Girijamma,
W/o Sri. Late. M.Hariprakasa Rao,
Aged about 47 years,
Husband retired Ex. Senior Scientist,
Indian Institute of Horticultural Research,
Hessaragatta, Bangalore 560 089.
Residing at No.B-403, Ramanajyothi Apartments,
CMTI, 3rd Floor, Yeshwanthapur,
Bangalore-560 022. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri.K.Sreeram)
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Kristi Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Director, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research,
Hessaragatta Lake Post,
Bangalore - 560 089.
3. The Chief Administrative officer,
Indian Institute of Horticultural Research,
Hessaragatta Lake Post,
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.24
17:25:04+05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00656/24
Bangalore-560 089 ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri.P.Nishan Unni)
ORDER
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 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00656/24 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 SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00656/24 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 Respondents even after contesting the P & SC case has deliberately failed to implement the court order. The Court has directed the Respondents to settle the Family Pension to the applicant. The Respondents without any justification has simply rejected it by saying that Smt. Girijamma has failed to establish the legal right for disbursement of Family Pension under CCS(Pension) Rules 1972.
5. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Gaddam Ruth Victoria-Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online AP 1690 after a detailed discussion and also referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement has taken a view in para no. 48. We are of the view that the object of providing family Pension to the wife after the death of the husband/Government employee cannot be different from the object of providing maintenance during lifetime of the husband in case of divorce. The Hon'ble High court also made reference of the above aspects.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shiramabai W/o Pundalik. Bhave and others
-Vs- The Captain, Record officer for O.I.C. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00656/24 Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar state and another (2023)11 SCR 130 at Para
11. It is no longer res integra that if a man and woman cohabit as husband and wife for a long duration, one can draw a presumption in their favour that they were living together as a consequence of a valid marriage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the SLP and stated that the applicant No.1 is held entitled to receive the Pension payable on the demise of Late Subedar Bhave. The applicant and the late husband were married and living together after the dissolution of the first marriage 04.06.1997.
7. The Respondents without looking into the above facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several Judgement. The Respondents without any application of mind mechanically disposed of the representation by rejecting the claim of the applicant.
8. The applicant is entitled to be considered under the Family pension scheme. The applicant once again brings to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal that the Respondents has not challenged the order and accept the order passed by the City Civil Court in P & SC case and it has attained finality and now refusing to pay Family Pension is totally incorrect."
3. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the synopsis, are that:
The applicant's husband, Late. Dr. Hariprakasa Rao was appointed to the Respondents department from 11.09.1974 and took voluntary retirement from service on 31.03.2002. The applicant's SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00656/24 husband, at the time of voluntary retirement, was working as a Pr.
Scientist. The applicant's late husband was drawing a pension till death on 08.07.2020. The applicant approached the respondents by submitting a representation dated 28.01.2021 to extend the benefit of the family pension. The Respondents by Letter dated 11.08.2021 instructed the applicant to produce a marriage certificate from the concerned authorities who registered their marriage, if registered or decree from Court to the effect that Late Dr. Hariprakasa Rao married Smt. Girijamma alias Girija. The applicant, based on the above letter dated 11.08.2021, approached the Court of XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in P & SC. No.594 of 2021 to grant a Succession Certificate. The Court was pleased to allow the application on 23.11.2022. The applicant submitted a representation dated 16.01.2023 along with the copy Judgment in P & SC No.594 of 2021 to the 3rd Respondent, though the 3rd Respondent was also a party to the Judgment. The Respondent does not take any decision on the representation dated 16.01.2023. The applicant, with no other alternatives, had filed Ο.Α. No. 170/00135 of 2023 to issue a direction to the Respondents to take a decision on her representation dated 16.01.2023. The Tribunal was pleased to direct the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in any event not later than 8 weeks. The SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00656/24 3rd Respondent rejected the claim of the applicant by Office order dated 10/15.07.2024 by stating that the applicant has failed to establish as a wife and, therefore, her request for family pension is hereby rejected.
Hence, this application.
4. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement to the O.A. A rejoinder has been filed by the applicant thereafter.
5. The case came up for final hearing on 10.3.2026. Learned counsel Shri.K.Sreeram for the applicant and learned counsel Shri.P.Nishan Unni for the respondents were present and heard.
6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions.
7. The facts of the case are generally not disputed except that the respondents failed to recognize the applicant as the wife/legally wedded wife of the late employee Dr.M.Hariprakasa Rao.
8. The main claim of the applicant is that she, being the wife, sole survivor and legal successor, should be given the benefit of pension as per rule.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00656/24
9. The late Dr.M.Hariprakasa Rao was an employee of the respondents' organization from 11.09.1974 till his voluntary retirement from service w.e.f 31.03.2002. The respondents assert that in his service record, it is submitted that one Dr.M.A. Nagarani was his wife who had divorced him during 1997 and the mutual consent divorce decree is duly placed in Service Record and from that wed lock the Late Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao had two children, daughter Ms.M. Aparna and son Shri.M.Srikanth. The said Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao died on 08.07.2020 and had not produced any legal documents regarding his marriage with the applicant before the Respondents' organization till his death under relevant pension or family pension rules.
10. The respondents further assert that the applicant is a complete stranger to the respondent's organization and that the ICAR employees are governed by Government of India (CCS) Pension Rules updated from time to time and after the death of the retired employee, only the spouse is eligible for family pension. Hence, as the deceased had not informed them, they do not recognize the applicant as his wife.
11. The applicant asserts that on her application, while rejecting her earlier application vide their letter dated 11.08.2021 respondents had asked the applicant to produce either her marriage certificate or a decree SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00656/24 from Court that she was the wife of the deceased employee, and she has produced the death certificate of the Late Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao as Annexure A-1 wherein the death is mentioned as on 08.07.2020 and in the place of relation: the name of wife - Girija, i.e., the name of the applicant, is mentioned.
12. Further, she has produced Family Tree, issued by Deputy Tahsildar in Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru District with certificate No.RD 5019267147437, which she has enclosed as part of Annexure A-1 wherein along with Late Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao, Smt. Girija Alias Girijamma, aged 44, is shown as the wife. She has further placed as Annexure A-3 an order from the Court of the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru dated 23rd November 2022 in P&SC No.594/2021 which read the following:
" Order This Petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 filed by the Petitioner is allowed, Issue Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner to get the family pension of her deceased husband Dr. M. Hariprakasa Rao held with employer of her deceased husband i.e., 1" respondent (I.C.A.R.) and also to get back the amount standing in the name of deceased Dr. M. Hariprakasa Rao with 2nd Respondent bank as mentioned in the schedule, after payment of court fee as per SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00656/24 Article 7 of Schedule I of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958."
13. Further, just before the operative part of the order, same document mentioned following:
" By perusal of the above documents produced by the petitioner, this Court has come to an opinion that petitioner is able to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased Dr.M.Hariprakasa Rao who resided within the jurisdiction of this Court."
14. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents, the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (ICAR) and State Bank of India, were parties to these proceedings, ICAR was very much present in the Court and had done some cross examination and submissions also; and they have not challenged the said order further. But the respondents are asserting before us that they are now challenging before us in this Original Application the claim of the applicant that she is the wife of Late Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao and they do not recognize her as the deceased employee's wife, and they cannot strictly implement the above order of the Civil Court dated 23.11.2022 as it was beyond the competence of civil court to decide on "Family Pension Issue". As the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00656/24 family pension is governed by rules and not a property or estate to be willed.
15. The court order further decreed which is placed as Annexure A- 4, wherein clearly for the family pension of deceased employee Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao, a succession certificate is issued in the name of the applicant Smt. Girija @ Girijamma.
16. The main contention between the parties is that the applicant asserts that this is a testamentary document which supports her claim and that she was married to the deceased Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao in the year 2000 on 11.06.2000 and at that point of time there was no law for marriage registration. Hence, no specific documentary evidence could be adduced, but she had contested that the respondents were very much parties and her case was decreed, and she has obtained a succession certificate as the wife of Late Dr.M.Hariprakasa Rao. She further says that all the immovable and movable property of the husband have, through due process, devolved on her as the sole successor of her deceased husband, Dr.M.Hariprakasa Rao, and the respondents themselves have facilitated the same. She had been nominee of bank accounts of the deceased employee, and she has now received all such amounts, including even the house property. Her name has been entered SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00656/24 as the sole successor and, after divorce from the first wife, the first wife and the two children have lived separately and the whereabouts of the two children are not known. Hence, they were not made parties, but the proceedings before the Civil Court were through due process of law and notices and public notices were issued and after due process, an order was passed. So no presumption can be there that still there are any interested parties left out, and if anyone was interested, they could have objected to it in the succession suit. And, after being parties before the Civil Court, the respondents cannot object to the succession documents. There are no rival claimants as a wife or children being eligible to claim family pension of the deceased. Hence, the applicant prays for granting the family pension to her.
17. The respondents have brought before us a catena of judgments to controvert the claim of the applicant. They have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.2343 of 1995 dated 7.10.1997, reported in 1998(4) S.C.T 797, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Smt. Rukmani Mishra wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that, "... it cannot be held that it is a case where the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the wife of the deceased government servant. The decisions (supra) of the Supreme Court relied on behalf of the State are not helpful in invoking SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00656/24 the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution".
Basically, the respondents want to say that this citation ruled that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide such matters of family pension. But for a moment, even if we do not agree, the Civil Court's decision of her claim to family pension, which as contended by the respondent may not be binding on the respondents. However, the civil court's decision that the applicant is the wife and the sole successor of the deceased is sufficient to claim her family pension. So, in effect, the above quoted decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in any way does not prejudice the case of the applicant.
18. Further, the respondents have quoted the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.24760 of 2007 dated 05.12.2008 in Union of India and Others v. Kapilaben Nandu Solanki. A closer look of the case shows that this case is based on the misrepresentation and suppression of an earlier judgment and the subsequent succession certificate declared illegal, null, and void.
But in the case of the applicant, the simple fact found by the Civil Court and declared that the applicant as a legally wedded wife, she has a rightful claim to family pension. And it is not denied that the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00656/24 respondents were parties before the Civil Court. They were represented before the Court and had also subjected the applicant to some cross- examination. If they had any dispute regarding the civil Court's jurisdiction to speak about family pension, they should have objected then and there, or if they have any evidence to show that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased retired employee, they should have adduced further evidence there or challenged the said order. Once they were parties to the proceedings, and they have not challenged the order, they are estopped from asserting that they will not recognize the applicant as the legally wedded wife of the deceased retired employee Dr. M. Hariprakasa Rao. Facts of being a legally wedded wife is sufficient under service rule to claim family pension, as the wife/husband/spouse has the first right to family pension.
19. Further, the respondents have come up with the decision of the Jhankhand High Court in Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors. v. Rameshwar Prasad reported in 2014(3) J.C.R 611 in which basically it has been held that an employee has no right to bequeath right for family pension or to execute a Will in favour of any person to extend benefit of family pension. The respondent procured succession certificate in respect of DCRG, commuted value etc. which has already SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00656/24 paid to him. The succession certificate was thus, not relevant for the purpose of pension.
If we go into the rationale of the said order, yes, any Will or testamentary document cannot make anyone eligible as such for a family pension, because family pension is covered by rules and only wife and children of a certain age or unmarried, widowed and divorced daughters of a certain age and income are eligible. Hence, that eligibility cannot be bestowed on anyone else than who is legally entitled under the rules. However, this order does not in any way controvert that a wife/legally wedded wife will not be eligible for family pension. Even if we take the part of the succession certificate which substantiates that the applicant was the wife of the deceased employee Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao, the applicant has a right to get a family pension. In fact, family pension to her, does not come by the force of a will, but by the fact she has been able to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased pensioner. This particular case of Jharkhand High Court makes it amply clear that the pension for a third party who is not recognized under the pension rule, like a person who is not a legal son or daughter or legally adopted child, will not be eligible for family pension even if there is a Will supporting the case. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00656/24 But this case law, does not prejudice the case of the applicant in any way.
20. Further, the respondents have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal No.653 of 1991 dated 12.02.1991 in the case of Smt.Violet Issac and others v. Union of India and Others reported in 1991(1) PLR 542 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee and that it does not enable the employee to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition.
The case before us can be distinguishable and the testamentary documents relied by court and the XXXIV Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, order dated 23rd November 2022, has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the sole successor of the late Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao is important. Hence, the applicant being the legally wedded wife of Dr.M. Hariprakasa Rao becomes eligible for family pension in spite of a Will or a decree. She is entitled to a family pension, just because she is able to prove that she was the legally wedded wife and sole successor of her husband. Hence, this case also does not support the case objection of the respondents.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 17 O.A.No.170/00656/24
21. The applicant has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Diary No.2365/2022 on 26.07.2024 in the case of Radha Devi v. Chief General Manager and Others. But this order is for complete justice as such power exists with the Hon'ble Apex Court and those powers are not available with the Tribunals. In the cited case, one Jay Narayan Maharat, who had died, and a lady Radha Devi had lived with him and cared for each other post the death of the legally wedded wife, Ram Swari Devi @ Sawari Devi on 20.04.1984. Radha Devi was living with the deceased and the Court ruled that her status as spouse has to be recognized, and she should receive pension.
But certainly from this case, it cannot be gleaned that once a succession certificate recognizes the applicant as a legally wedded wife and a succession certificate is duly decreed by a competent court saying that the wife is the sole successor, and when in the said case of succession the respondents themselves were parties and the respondents were present, cross examined the applicant, but have not cared to challenge the said order, which has now becomes final with efflux of time a legal estoppel shall apply on them to assert that the applicant is not the wife of their deceased employee. In this particular case when issue of the applicant being the legally wedded wife was in active consideration of the civil court and the respondents were party there SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 18 O.A.No.170/00656/24 even res-judicata will apply on them to open the same issue again in any legal forum in the case of the applicant. As in the Civil Court it was substantiated that the applicant is the wife and sole successor of the deceased, she cannot be denied consideration for family pension by the respondents.
22. Further, the applicant has quoted the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court order on 18.08.2023 in Civil Appeal No.5262 of 2023 in the case of Smt.Shiramabai v. The Captain, Record Officer for O.I.C.Records, Sena Corps Abhilekh, Gaya, Bihar State and Another wherein the court observed that:
"21. In the instant case, if the period upto the year 1990 was to be excluded as the marriage between Late Subedar Bhave and Anusuya had got dissolved only on 15th November, 1990, fact remains that even thereafter, the deceased had continued to cohabit with the appellant No. 1 for eleven long years, till his demise in the year 2001. The appellant No.1 was the mother of two children born from the relationship with the deceased, namely, appellants Nos.2 and 3. Appellants No.2 and 3 have been held entitled to the estate of the deceased by virtue of the order passed by the High Court on the Review application moved by them. In the above background, a presumption ought to have been drawn in favour of the validity of the marriage between the deceased and the appellant No. 1, more so, when during his life time, the deceased had approached the respondent authorities for SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 19 O.A.No.170/00656/24 seeking deletion of the name of his previous wife - Anusuya from his service record and for endorsement of the name of the appellant No. 1 therein, which was duly acted upon by the respondents vide letter dated 05th July, 1999. It is also not in dispute that the ex-wife did not claim any pension from the respondents on the demise of Subedar Bhave.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment dated 25th June, 2013, passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad1 endorsing the order dated 16th September, 20102, passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikodi is restored. The appellant No.1 is held entitled to receive the pension payable on the demise of Late Subedar Bhave. As for the appellants No. 2 and 3, they would be entitled to the said relief till the date they attained the age of 25 years.
23. The appeal is allowed on the above terms while leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
Simple reading of the above shows that a similarly placed second wife was given the benefit of a family pension. There are some similarities between the case of the applicant and this case. But the applicant's case is also substantiated by the Civil Court order, which shows that the applicant is the legally wedded wife and sole successor of the deceased. And as the respondents were parties before the Civil SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 20 O.A.No.170/00656/24 Court, and they have not further challenged the said order, they cannot contest the same here and say that she is not the legally wedded wife and assert that she was not eligible for family pension. Even if we ignore the said part of the succession certificate as a document for substantiating a right to family pension as contended by the respondents, we cannot ignore the finding and its legal consequences therein that the applicant Smt.Girija was the legally wedded wife and sole successor of the deceased Dr.M.Hariprakasa Rao. Once that fact of being the wife and sole successor is established, hence consequently the family pension do not come to the applicant by succession certificate or any testamentary document/Will, but as a right under relevant family pension rules, due to the proven fact before a competent court that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, and a sole successor which is being agitated before us.
23. Further in the case of Jodh Singh v. Union of India (1980 4 SCC
306), the Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that pension is a statutory right governed by service rules, not an asset that can be disposed of via a will or determined solely by a civil court's succession certificate.
In the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a special family pension awarded to a deceased officer's widow does not form part of the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 21 O.A.No.170/00656/24 deceased's estate. Therefore, it cannot be disposed of via a Will, as it is a benefit triggered by death rather than a transferable asset which devolves by legal instructions. In the said case, a Flight Lieutenant who died in an accident and his widow was awarded a special family pension. The father of the deceased claimed the pension based on a will, arguing it was part of the estate. The court ruled that because the pension is not payable during the officer's lifetime and relies on the status of being a widow upon death, it is a new right generated upon death and not part of the deceased's transferable assets. This ruling established that family pensions cannot be willed away by the employee, ensuring financial security for the surviving widow/dependents.
But in the instant case, this Will may not be relevant and the Will and the Succession Certificate are both in favour of the wife, who otherwise also, by rules, is the natural successor of the deceased husband for claiming pension as per rules and in this case, the succession decree part which recognizes the applicant as legally wedded wife carries weight and the respondent department were very much part of the succession suit, and they failed to challenge the decree any further, where a clear finding was given that the applicant was the legally wedded wife, and they would be covered by both res-judicata and estoppel. Then the respondents may be barred from re-litigating her status as a wife as several years have passed since the said civil court decision.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 22 O.A.No.170/00656/24 Further, there are no rival claimants. It is clear from the records that the first wife was divorced, and the children are also grown-ups and their whereabouts were also not known. Further, the wife was the nominee in the bank accounts etc. and had inherited movable and immovable property from the applicant through a will and there are no other rival claimants for those inherited property also.
The employer's argument regarding non-notification under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 wherein it was necessary for the employee to notify the Head of Office regarding a change in family composition. But such failure to notify may not be fatal for the applicant, who has already been declared as the legally wedded wife through due legal proceedings. Hence, in the present case, the declaration of the applicant's status as wife is much more than in any other aspect of the court decree or Will and merely because she is declared as a legally wedded wife, she has a right to pension under the relevant pension rules.
24. Further, in the case of Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai ((2008) 2 SCC
238), the overall ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that even if the marriage formalities are questioned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a woman who lived with the employee as a wife and was nominated by him is entitled to the succession certificate (and consequently death benefits) over the first wife who had stayed away for years. In the said case, there was still the first wife who had stayed away for years, and she was a rival claimant. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 23 O.A.No.170/00656/24 But in the present case, clearly, the first wife was already divorced, and their children were also grown-ups and their whereabouts were not known to make their rival claims. Although this case involved the Hon'ble Apex Court's special powers under Article 142, the general principle that a succession certificate issued by a Civil Court is binding on the employer (especially when the employer was a party and did not appeal) is a matter of Res-judicata and civil law, which a Tribunal can certainly recognize.
Hence, this Tribunal certainly recognizes the rights declared for the applicant as being considered as a legally wedded wife. The fact that the respondents were party to a succession suit and failed to challenge it and in the said suit, the civil court has declared the applicant as the legally wedded wife and sole successor and that decree, because it remains un- challenged, has become final, now the respondents cannot sit in appeal over that judicial determination by citing administrative rules like Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules that her name was not notified, and she was not nominated as the wife of the deceased pensioner etc. or to further dispute that the employer does not recognise her as the legally wedded wife. Hence, in our considered opinion the only option before the Tribunal is to simply enforce a judicial finding on being legally wedded wife already determined by a Civil Court in a suit where the employer was very much present and have not cared to further challenge the said findings in time.
25. Further, in the case of G.L.Bhatia v. Union of India and Another ((1999) 5 SCC 237), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a situation SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 24 O.A.No.170/00656/24 where an employee had nominated someone else, ignoring the spouse, the court held that if there is a family as defined in the rules (which includes a wife), the nomination made in favor of a stranger or the failure to nominate the wife is irrelevant. The statutory right of the spouse prevails over administrative records.
As in the present case, the first wife divorced in 1998 and that is very much on record and the applicant is declared as the legally wedded wife and the sole successor by a competent court decree, her right is automatic under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, regardless of whether the deceased updated his office files. There cannot be a case for withholding the pension of a proven widow based on the mere surmised possibility presented by the respondents that one of the children may be a rival claimant and their whereabouts were not known till now, and they have not come forward to claim. The applicant being declared as a legally wedded wife is sufficient to prove her credentials for the purpose of CCS (Pension) Rules.
26. Further, the court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Smt. Poonamal, had ruled that the family pension is a social security measure and not a bounty, and the respondents cannot arbitrarily exclude the applicant by saying that she is relying on some Will or Succession Certificate. In reality before us, she is merely relying on a Succession Certificate where a clear finding has been given that she is the legally wedded wife and once that fact SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 25 O.A.No.170/00656/24 is proved and not challenged, the respondents are estopped from asserting a contrary status. A procedural requirement under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules regarding reporting the status of a wife and children, cannot override a judicial determination of status by a competent Civil Court. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to the family pension as the sole surviving eligible member of the deceased's family.
27. It is relevant to see family pension Rule 50 and sub-rule 6 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which reads as follows:
"50. Family Pension.-
(6) The family pension shall be payable to the members of the family of the deceased Government servant or pensioner in the following order, namely:-
(i) subject to provisions of sub- rule (8), widow or widower, (including a post-retiral spouse and judicially separated wife or husband),
(ii) subject to provisions of sub-rule (9), children (including adopted children, step children and children born after retirement of the pensioner),
(iii)subject to provisions of sub-rule (10), dependent parents (including adoptive parents) of the deceased Government servant or pensioner,
(iv) subject to provisions of sub-rule (11), dependent siblings ( i.e. brother or sister) of the deceased Government servant or pensioner, suffering from a mental or physical disability, Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule 'widow' and 'widower', shall mean a spouse, legally wedded to the deceased Government servant or the pensioner."
28. Clearly, the rule specifies that the widow or widower has the first right over the family pension and the meaning of widow and widower has been SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 26 O.A.No.170/00656/24 made very clear in the explanation that widow or widower shall mean a spouse, legally wedded to the deceased Government servant or the pensioner. The civil court in the succession certificate which is placed on record has clearly declared that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased pensioner. Once that status is not contested by the respondents before a competent court, any further contest on this before us in this proceeding is futile, as they were very much parties to the said succession proceeding, and in our considered opinion they are hit by both res-judicata and estoppel to, in any way, discrediting the said legal instrument on some extraneous ground that it is based on will or succession certificate. Such arguments are irrelevant for the purpose of family pension. Reading of the Apex Court orders and the rules makes it amply clear that the "Succession Certificate" or "Will" will be irrelevant only in such cases which goes against the grain of sub-rule 6 of Rule 50 on family pension. No Succession Certificate or Will can override the provisions in these primary rules on family pension and change or alter automatic rights created for natural successor in the said rule.
29. In the present case, we do not find any conflict between the primary rules on family pension in Rule 50(6) and (i). The only thing to be taken from the succession certificate is that the applicant has been legally declared as the legally wedded wife of the deceased and the sole successor. Hence, by virtue of being a wife, she is entitled to the family pension. SHAINEY VIJU SHAINECAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.03.24 17:25:04+05'30' 27 O.A.No.170/00656/24
30. Considering the same, we do not find any force in the submissions of the respondents and, accordingly, pass the following orders:
The Original Application is allowed by setting aside the office order F.No.4-2006/2021/Estt-II/Comp No.231877/ 3004 dated 10/15- 07-2024 (ANNEXURE A.8). The respondents are directed to consider the applicant as the legally wedded wife and sole successor of Shri.M.Hariprakasa Rao and take steps to grant her family pension from the date of death of her deceased husband and grant her all consequential benefits. The arrears of pension and all consequential benefits shall carry the GPF rate of interest.
This order shall be implemented expeditiously, in any event not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
All associated M.As, if any pending, are disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINECAT
BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.03.24
17:25:04+05'30'