P.V.Beena vs Union Of India & Ors.

Claiming herself as the widow of late Thulaseedharan C., Senior Auditor in the office of the 2^nd respondent, the applicant has challenged the non-feasance on the part of the respondents in not granting her family pension in her capacity as the widow, to direct the respondents to issue orders sanctioning family pension to the applicant being widow of late Thulaseedharan C. and grant such other reliefs.

The applicant claimed herself as the legally wedded wife of late Thulaseedharan who passed away on 03.09.2018. According to her, she was married by Thulaseedharan on 15.04.2003, in accordance with the customs and rituals prevailing in the community. But the respondents have refused to grant her pension. On the other hand, the 2^nd respondent granted 50% of pension to Smt. Shobana Raj S., 3^rd respondent, which according to the applicant is illegal. The applicant also challenges the stand of respondent no.2 that the children of the applicant alone are eligible for the remaining portion of family pension.

The respondents have disputed the claims of the applicant. According to them, late Thulaseedharan C. had nominated the 3^rd respondent as the spouse, in the Service Book. The inquiry of the respondents also revealed that he had married the 3^rd respondent according to the customs prevailing in the community. According to the 2^nd respondent, government servant conducting a second marriage during the lifetime of the spouse is illegal and violative of the Conduct Rules. Even though the name of the 3^rd respondent is not incorporated in the PPO before retirement, the deceased pensioner had failed to produce joint photograph of himself and his wife. On the other hand, the applicant had moved a representation claiming herself as widow of the deceased pensioner and also stating that two children have been born in the relationship with the service pensioner. But the applicant failed to produce documents proving marriage. At the same time, she produced a notarised affidavit proving that the applicant is the wife since 15.04.2003 and birth certificates of two children and a copy of the ration card. In the light of the same, the respondents have taken a decision to grant 50% of family pension to the 3^rd respondent. In the light of the claim of the applicant, it is proposed to grant remaining 50% pension to the girl children as per Rule 54 (14) (b) (1) of CCS Pension Rules.

Pursuant to the communication issued by the 2^nd respondent, the applicant moved a representation to the 2^nd respondent claiming family pension to herself, which was rejected by Annexure A6. Annexure A6 is under challenge.

I heard Shri. Abhishek V.S. representing Shri. T. Naveen, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri. Vineeth Komalachandran representing Smt. Sreekala T.K., learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

Evidently Sri. Thulaseedharan C. retired as Senior Auditor under the 2^nd respondent on 28.02.2010, was sanctioned pension. On his expiry on 03.09.2018, ordinarily family pension has to be granted to his widow. As late Thulaseedharan C. had not produced any joint photograph with spouse Smt. Shobana Raj S., 3^rd respondent, as incorporated in the Service Book, at the instance of late Sri. Thulaseedharan C., Annexure A8 PPO was issued by the respondents. In this connection, it is important to highlight Annexure A8 (5) where details of family members eligible for family pension in the event of death of pensioner, no name is incorporated but only stated “will be incorporated later”. That means, even though the name of the 3^rd respondent was shown as the spouse of the deceased pensioner in the Service Book, her name is not incorporated at the appropriate place in Annexure A8. Nor it contains the name of the applicant as his wife. After the death of the pensioner, the applicant staked claim for family pension; after an inquiry, the the 2^nd respondent, on the basis of the nomination made in the Service Book decided to grant 50% pension to the Smt. Shobana Raj S., which has already been passed.

Meanwhile, the applicant staked claim for family pension claiming herself as the widow of the pensioner. At the same time, she did not produce any document proving her status as wife of the pensioner. In a case of this nature, the status of the applicant is very important, which can be proved only through proof of marriage. Even though it is claimed that the marriage was solemnised on 15.03.2003, details of marriage, ceremonies underwent etc. are conspicuously absent in the Original Application. Sufficient legal documents are also not produced by the applicant to prove her status as the spouse of the pensioner.

On the other hand, the documents produced were only an affidavit, sworn jointly by the applicant and Thulaseedharan on 23.11.2013 attested by the notary public, birth certificates of the two children, and the ration card. There can be no doubt that Annexure A1 is a notarised affidavit; however, without going into the legal aspect of the document, it is a self serving document, which cannot be accepted to prove the marriage. In fact, no other document except the affidavit and ration card were produced to prove the status of the applicant as the wife of the pensioner. These documents do not prove her claim as the widow of Thulaseedharan.

It may be true that late Thulaseedharan and the applicant were living together for a considerable long period and two girl children were born in the relationship as evident from Annexure A2 & A3. That would not prove marriage or status of the applicant as the legally wedded wife. At the most she was his concubine which will not enable her to claim family pension. Even the illegitimate children born in such relationships are entitled to succeed to the estate of late father. In that way, the second respondent is right in saying that 50% of the pension can be granted to the children, as per Rules.

So long as the applicant has failed to prove the status as widow of the pensioner, there is no justification in quashing Annexure A6. If so advised, she can avail 50% pension to the children by producing appropriate documents.

With these observations, the O.A is disposed of. No costs.

Annexure A1- True copy of the Notarized Affidavit dated 23.11.2013.

Annexure A2- True copy of the Birth Certificate issued by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram in the name of Aleena B.T. Dated 12.9.2005.

Annexure A3- True copy of the Birth Certificate issued in the name of Amritha B.T. by the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram dated 10.5.2009.

Annexure A4- True copy of the relevant page of the Ration Card No.1106233051 issued in the name of Sri. Thulaseedharan C. (along with English Translation).

Annexure A5- True copy of the Death Certificate of the applicant's husband Sri. Thulaseedharan C. issued by Maranalloor Grama Panchayat dated 18.9.2018.

Annexure A6- True copy of the Communication No. OE (Cash)/Pen./18-19/111 dated 4.1.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A7- True copy of the Communication No. OE (Cash)/Pen./18-19/139 dated 19.2.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

Annexure A8- True copy of the relevant pages of the Pension Payment Order of late Sri. Thulaseedharan C.