Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Krishan Kumar Gaba vs Delhi Secretariat on 24 March, 2026
OA No.3102-2024
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3102/2024
Order reserved on 12.03.2026
Order pronounced on 24.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Krishan Kumar Gaba
S/o late (Shri) Trilok Chand
135 LIG Flat,
Prateek Apartments,
A-2, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi-110063
......Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Sarika Khandelwal)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Through Secretary,
NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-110002.
2. Secretary of Education,
GNCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054.
3. Director of Education,
GNCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
New Delhi-110054.
4. DD-Education (South West-A),
C-4, Lane Vasant Vihar,
Near Tagore International School
New Delhi-110066.
5. Principal
Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhyalaya-01
Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi-110023.
JUGAL JUGAL
KISHORE
KISHOR 2026.03.25
12:07:51
E +05'30'
OA No.3102-2024
2
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav)
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):
In the instant OA, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-
"a) To Quash the impugned order No SKV No 1/SN/2023/3209-3210 Dated 20.01.2024
b) Direct the Respondents to release all the funds/monies including family pension and the deposits payable to the Applicant's wife from the department with interest.
c) For release of family pension within time with interest.
d) Cost of litigation be directed to be paid by the respondents, the quantum of which this Hon'ble Tribunal may decide keeping in view the mental agony of the applicant.
e) Allow Applicant to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the aforesaid grounds if required.
f) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present case pertains to grant of a family pension as the wife of the applicant, Pushpa Kumari Puri, retired from service on July 31, 2020, and passed away on April 2, 2022.
2.1 The applicant submitted a request to the authorities for family pension. He claimed that he married late Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri on 25.08.1989 at Arya Samaj Mandir. He also referenced a note dated May 10, 1989, allegedly written by Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri in her own handwriting. He also cited Smt. Pushpa Kumari's death certificate, which mentioned applicant's name as the spouse of the JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 3 deceased. Additionally, the applicant has relied upon the certificate issued by the SDM (SW) (Annexure A-17) in support of his contention. 2.2 The applicant's counsel submitted that although the respondents, in paragraph 4 of their reply, specifically stated the deceased employee nominated her brother, Mr. Yash Pal Puri and her sister-in-law, Mrs. Asha Puri, to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity; however, no annexure or document pertaining to Mrs. Pushpa Kumari has been produced to substantiate this. 2.3 The applicant relies on a certificate issued by the SDM (South-West), filed as Annexure A-7.
2.4 In support of applicant's claim, learned counsel relied upon Annexure A-16, which is the Surviving Member Certificate bearing No. 90660000201454, issued by the Revenue Department, Government of NCT of Delhi on October 26, 2023, which clearly records the applicant as the husband of the late Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri and certifies him as the sole surviving member of her family. The certificate is also displayed on the notice board outside the Office of the District Magistrate, Kapashera, Delhi, reflecting the issuance of the Surviving Member Certificate and the Jivit Ashrit Praman Patra.
2.5 Attention is also drawn to Annexure A-5, namely Pension Payment Order No. 28062/05/0179/4, wherein Late Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri is identified as the applicant's wife. Additionally, the PPO displays photographs of both the deceased employee and the applicant.
2.6 Applicant had brought on record several documents confirming the marriage of the Applicant with the deceased namely:
1. Marriage Certificate JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 4
2. Note by Late (Smt.) Pushpa Kumari Puri certifying the marriage.
3. Admit Card of Late (Smt.) Pushpa Kumari Puri when she was admitted at AIIMS, Delhi for her treatment.
4. Letter from Central Pension Accounting Office to Manager of Syndicate Bank and Pension Payment Order.
5. Death Certificate of Late (Smt.) Pushpa Kumari Puri.
6. Applicant's Pension Payment Order.
7. Affidavit of Shri R. S. Manchanda.
8. Affidavit of Smt. Shakuntala Manchanda.
9. Surviving Member Certificate.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a document wherein the deceased employee had nominated her brother and sister-in-law for payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). He also highlighted the pension papers, where, according to the nomination rules, the deceased employee had nominated Shri Yashpal Puri, the applicant's brother, and Smt. Asha Puri, sister-in-law of the deceased employee, for payment of arrears of pension. 3.1 The respondents' counsel, producing original records, stated that the applicant's deceased wife, Mrs. Pushpa Kumari, died on April 2, 2022. When she retired, she nominated her brother, Mr. Yash Pal Puri, and her sister-in-law, Mrs. Asha Puri, for death-cum-retirement gratuity, as detailed in Form 2 (Form for Arrears of Pension), Form A, and Form B, completed upon retirement. The deceased employee never nominated the applicant. Additionally, she did not nominate him in the PPO or any family pension-related documents. 3.2 The learned counsel for the respondents also drew our attention to Rule 53 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. According to this rule, a government servant must nominate one or more individuals to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity and, if applicable, the family pension. 3.3 The respondents, relying on the counter affidavit, contended that the applicant is not entitled to the requested relief. The central dispute for the JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 5 respondents is whether the applicant's deceased wife was indeed his wife. Until the applicant obtains appropriate legal proceedings in civil court, a succession certificate, or letters of administration from a competent court, the respondents are obligated to follow the rules concerning nomination. It was further argued that, in summary proceedings, the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the veracity of the applicant's claim that he is the husband of the deceased employee. 3.4 It has further been averred that pensioner Ms. Pushpa Kumari Puri, Ex. TGT, retired on 31/03/2000, her DOB being 23/01/1940, and she expired on 02/04/2022. At the time of retirement, Form 8 was filled, in which Ms. Pushpa Kumari Puri referred to herself as "Kumari", which as per the general norms of Indian society means an unmarried lady. In Form 7, she used her father's name rather than her husband's. During the Pre-2016 pension revision, while the pensioner was still alive, the revision authority made no mention of family pension.
3.5 Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the notification dated 26 August 1983 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel, vis-à- vis the rules governing nomination of the pensioners to receive the arrears of pension. It has been categorically submitted on behalf of the respondents that a nominee is the trustee, and once nomination has been given by the deceased employee, the respondents are bound to follow the rules of nominations contemplated, which reads as under:-
Nominations
5. (1) Every pensioner who has retired on or before the date of commencement of these rules shall, after taking root or by sending through registered post acknowledgement due to the respective JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 6 Pension, nominate any person for the purpose of Rule 4 in Form A and submit it, in triplicate, by personal service to the Disbursing Authority through whom pension is drawn.
(2) Within thirty days of the receipt of nomination in Form "A" as referred to in sub-rule (1), the Pension Disbursing Authority shall get the particulars of the pensioner, as mentioned in Form "A", verified with reference to the available records and return to the pensioner, after obtaining a receipt thereof, the duplicate copy of the nomination in Form "A" duly attested by him or an officer authorized by him in this behalf. The triplicate copy shall be sent to the Accounts Officer of the Department from where the pensioner had retired while the original copy of the nomination shall be recorded. (3) Every employee who is due to retire after the date of commencement of these rules shall submit the nomination, in triplicate, in Form "A" to the Head of Office or the Department from where he is retiring within three months before or after the date of retirement. (4) Within thirty days of the receipt of the nomination in Form "A" under sub-rule (3), the Head of Office shall get the particulars of the pensioner, as mentioned in Form "A", verified with reference to the records of the establishment and return to the pensioner, after obtaining the receipt thereof, a duplicate copy of the nomination in Form "A" duly attested by him or by an officer authorized by him in this behalf. The triplicate copy duly accepted shall be sent to the Accounts Officer, who shall pass it on to the Pension Disbursing Authority along with the Pension Payment Order. If the Pension Payment Order has already been issued in a particular case, the nomination shall be sent separately quoting PPO number and other particulars of the pension to enable the Pension Disbursing Authority to link up with the PPO.
(5) A notice of modification of nomination, including cases where a nominee pre-deceases the pensioner, shall be submitted in triplicate in Form "B" to the Pension Disbursing Authority in the manner specified in sub-rule (1), and thereafter the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis with modifications as if it was made under sub-rule (1).
(6) A nomination or a fresh nomination or a notice of modification of nomination shall be signed by the pensioner or, if he is illiterate, shall bear his thumb-impression given in the presence of two witnesses who shall also sign a declaration to that effect in the nomination, fresh nomination or notice of modification of nomination, as the case may be. (7) Nomination, fresh nomination or notice of modification of nomination shall take effect from the date of receipt thereof by the JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 7 Pension Disbursing Authority or the Head of Office, as the case may be.
BACK Accepted nomination to be conclusive proof. A nomination made under Rule 5 and accepted by the Pension Disbursing Authority or the Head of Office shall be a conclusive proof with regard to the person nominated to receive arrears of pension under these rules."
4. It has been argued that this OA cannot be entertained unless legal heirs, particularly nominees, are made parties.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
6. The Tribunal is tasked with adjudicating whether a surviving spouse, whose status has been duly authenticated by the competent district authorities, is entitled to receive pensionary benefits, or whether such benefits are to be restricted solely to the nominees of the deceased employee, who, in the present case, are the brother and sister-in-law. Should the applicant be referred to Civil Court for the determination of the dispute?
7. Analysis 7.1 Examining the case at hand, we have to arrive at the conclusion, whether the nomination made by the deceased employee shall supersede the claim of the applicant, being the legally wedded husband.
7.2 To arrive at such a decision, we have to examine the case based on the material placed on the record by the applicant as well as respondents.
JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 8 7.3 The applicant submitted a survival member certificate from the Revenue Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, District West. It was incumbent upon the respondents to verify the claim of the applicant and the genuineness of such a certificate being issued. Respondents cannot unilaterally assume an investigative role regarding the claim that no record establishes the applicant as the deceased employee's legally wedded husband. Furthermore, a comprehensive inquiry into their legally wedded relationship until the employee's death cannot be refuted merely by suspicion or the apprehension that, if this were the case, the deceased employee would not have nominated her brothers and sister-in-law. 7.4 No cogent evidence on record dispels or leads to the conclusion that the applicant was not the legally wedded husband. Furthermore, Pushpa Kumari Puri's status as "Kumari" and her use of her father's name instead of her husband's name in Form 7 in 2016 does not alter her marital status. The objective of the nomination facility is distinct and established for the simplification of the procedure pertaining to the settlement of deceased claims, thereby mitigating potential hardship upon the demise of the individual who initiated the nomination. The legal position is now unequivocally established, inter alia, to the effect that the nominee functions as an agent or trustee, and that nomination is not construed as a method of testamentary succession or an alternative to a will. Indian courts have consistently held that a nominee acts merely as an agent to receive due funds, which remain the assureds' property throughout their lifetime. Upon the assureds' death, these funds become part of their estate, subject to the relevant succession laws.
JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 9 7.5 The issue is more or less well settled. We would refer to the following case laws:-
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi [AIR 1984 SC 346] interpreted the role of a nominee in light of the provisions of the Insurance Act and held:
a. That mere nomination did not confer on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the insurance policy on the death of the assured. b. The nomination only indicated the hand which was authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer got a valid discharge of its liability under the policy.
c. During the lifetime of the policy holder, the interest in the policy belonged to the holder alone and the nominee had no right or entitlement under it. d. On the death of the policy holder, the amount payable under the policy became part of his estate which was governed by the applicable law of succession and may be testamentary or intestate.
e. Therefore, provisions pertaining to nomination under the Insurance Act did not operate as a third kind of succession which could be styled as a statutory testament. f. A nominee could not be treated as being equivalent to a legal heir or legatee. g. The beneficial interest under the policy could, therefore, be claimed by the legal heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them."
(ii) In Vishin Khanchandani v. Vidya Khanchandani [AIR 2000 SC 747], a similar interpretation was given to the role of a nominee with respect to Section 6 of the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1956.Therefore, until this time, though the provisions in respect of nomination in each statute like insurance, government savings, cooperative societies etc. may be worded differently, the legal position of a nominee has been accepted to be that of a trustee and is not considered to be any kind of testamentary succession.
(iii) In Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta [(2009) 10 SCC 680],where it was held that the position of nomination is no longer res integra and the nominee is entitled to receive the benefit, but the amount so received is to be distributed JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 10 according to the laws of succession among the legal heirs.(See:"Nomination process,therefore, does not override the succession laws." CIVIL APPEAL NO.
7107 OF 2017 -SHAKTI YEZDANI & ANR. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JAYANAND JAYANT SALGAONKAR & ORS. decided on DECEMBER 14, 2023 (Supreme Court).
7.6 In Jodh Singh V. Union of India & Anr., [1980] 4 S.C.C. 306, followed. Smt. Violet Issac And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors . 8 February, 1991 SCR (1) 282, wherein the Apex court dealt with case of the death of a Railway employee, dispute arose among his wife, sons, daughters and brother for the family pension, gratuity and other emoluments. The brother of the deceased employee filed a civil suit in-the court of Sub judge for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants.---the wife, sons and daughter-from claiming or receiving any monetary benefits from the Railway Administration, contending that by a will dated 9.9.1984 of the deceased employee, he was entitled to receive the benefits to the deceased employee's widow. The Railway Authority did not pay any amount, as an injunction had been issued by the Civil Court. The appellants there-upon made an application before this Tribunal for a direction for the release of the amounts on the grounds that the will was a forged one, and the beneficiary was not entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The Tribunal held that since the dispute related to rival claims based on title arising from relationship, it had no jurisdiction to decide the same. It also directed transfer of the case to the Civil Court for trial. In the appeal to Apex Court on the question was: whether family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will.
JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 11 Allowing the appeal, Apex Court, "HELD: 1. Family Pension Rules, 1964 provided 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. [285E-H]
2. 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 welfare scheme framed by the Railway administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. [285H-286B]
3. 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. [286B-C] [The appellant No. 1, widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive the family pension, notwithstanding the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 9.9.1984 in favour of his brother. As regards JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 12 appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, they are not minors, therefore, under the Rules they are not entitled to any family pension. [286F-H] The Railway Administration is free to evict them in accordance with the Rules, only after arrears of family pension are paid to the widow." 7.7 The case of Moser v. Marsden [I943) 2 AL E.R. 525 is clearly an authority for the proposition that the court has jurisdiction to add as a party defendant only a person who is directly interested in the subject matter of the litigation and not a person who will be only indirectly or commercially affected. Kay L. J. who agreed with Lindley L. J. in that case, observed that the relevant rule of the Supreme Court, on its proper construction, authorized the court to add only such persons as would be bound by the judgment to be given in the action, but did not authorize the court to add any persons who would not be so bound and whose interest may only indirectly be affected in a commercial sense. To the same effect is the decision in Re I. G. Farbenindustrie A.G. Agreement. Referring to the above preposition, the Apex Court in RAZIA BEGUM v. SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM &OTHERS (1959(1) SCR 1111 ) held that in order fora party may be added as a defendant in the suit, he should have a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation-legal interest not as distinguished from an equitable interest, but an interest that the law recognizes. The question of the addition of parties under 0. 1, R. 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure is generally not one of the initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion; in a suit for a declaration regarding status or legal character under s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, therule that in order fora person to be added as a party he must have a present or direct interest in the subject matter of the suit is not wholly applicable, and the rule may be relaxed in a suitable JUGAL JUGAL KISHORE KISHOR 2026.03.25 12:07:51 E +05'30' OA No.3102-2024 13 case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversy. In such suits, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for on a mere admission of the claim by the defendantif the court has reasons to insist upon clear proof, apart from the admission.
7.8 There is no legal or regulatory basis to reject a family pension solely because the applicant's name is absent from service records. Therefore, the applicant cannot be relegated to civil court.
8. CONCLUSION 8.1 In view of the above discussion, the impugned office order dated 20.01.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed, to process the case of the applicant for retiral dues. The respondents are directed to release all funds and money, including pensions, subject to verification of the sole survival certificate. In order to justify and indemnify the legal recourse by any other legal heirs, an indemnity bond be obtained from the applicant. The aforesaid compliance shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy; failing which, the applicant shall also be entitled to interest at the GPF rate till the date of actual payment. The original application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 8.2. Pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jk/
JUGAL JUGAL
KISHORE
KISHOR 2026.03.25
12:07:51
E +05'30'
OA No.3102-2024
14
JUGAL JUGAL
KISHORE
KISHOR 2026.03.25
12:07:51
E +05'30'