G.L. Bhatia vs Union Of India & Anr.
1998 Latest Caselaw 644 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the original application (O.A.) filed by him against the rejection of his claim for family pension was dismissed.

2. Petitioner claims to be the husband of deceased, Mahesh Kumari Bhatia, who was employed with MTNL and had retired on 30.4.1985. She died on 26.9.1993. Respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for family pension on the ground that the deceased did not nominate the petitioner and, in fact, had nominated her two sons as the original nominees and her daughters as alternate nominees.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, urged before us that deceased was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner till her death. The marriage had not been dissolved by any Court of law. Petitioner being the widower, was the sole legal heir of the deceased employee, entitled to receive the family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel submitted that the right of the sons or the daughters of deceased to receive pension was secondary and could arise only in the absence of the petitioner. He submitted that, in any case, the sons and daughters of the petitioner were over 25 years of age and married respectively and were, thus, ineligible to be beneficiaries under the 'Family Pension Scheme'. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Smt. Violet Issaac & Others Vs. Union of India & Others , in support of his contention that an employee does not have any title to the family pension which is governed only by the Family Pension Scheme. No other persons, except those designated under the Rules, are entitled to family pension. In the cited case, the deceased had made a bequest in favour of his brother. The widow had moved the Apex Court. It was held that the widow was entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme and Rules. The deceased could not, by bequest, in favour of his brother deprive the widow. The Apex Court observed as under:

"The family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to a 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 employee has no title nor any 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. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. Accordingly, in the present case the widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive the family pension, notwithstanding the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased."

4. The instant case is not one where a claim had been preferred on the basis of bequest like in Smt. Violet Issaac & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (Supra). In the cited case, an ineligible person, namely the brother was seeking to defeat the rights of a widow to pension on the basis of a bequest.

On the other hand, the present case is one where a separated spouse, who had been living independently seeks to cash on and partake in the munificence and bounty of the State by claiming the pension under the Family Pension Scheme. It is not disputed before us that the petitioner had been living separately. Further, the deceased, who was required under Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules to disclose her family members, did not even include the petitioner as a 'family member'. She had mentioned and nominated her sons and in the alternative her daughters to receive the family pension. It is, thus, clear that petitioner who had been living separately was not even regarded by her as a member of her family. These factors prevailed with the department as also with the Central Administrative Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to family pension. Moreover, as noticed by the Tribunal, the claim for family pension was raised belatedly, nearly three years after the death of the deceased, Mahesh Kumar Bhatia.

5. Petitioner, who has been living independently and separately and who was not even considered a part of her family by the deceased, certainly does not deserve to be given the relief under the Family Pension Scheme, which is designed to provide succour on the untimely death of an employee. This is the very object of the Family Pension Scheme as is evident from the judgement of the Apex Court in Smt.Violet Issaac & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (Supra). Petitioner's case militates against this very object. Even though the petitioner seeks to assert a legal right for grant of pension as a widower, since his marriage with the deceased employee was not dissolved, we are not persuaded, in the facts of this case, to interfere with the judgement of the Tribunal in the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Dismissed.