Smt. Sarla Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants Shri M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the official respondents as well as Shri Alap Bhai Patel, learned counsel for the private respondent.

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA, are that the applicant, Smt. Sarla Devi, claims to be the legally wedded wife of Late Vinod Kumar, who was working as MTS under ADRDE, Agra, and upon his death she became entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and nomination made in the pension papers. The respondents initially initiated the process for payment of family pension and terminal benefits to the applicant; however, Respondent No. 4 raised an objection on the ground of pendency of divorce proceedings and requested that payment to the applicant be withheld. The applicant consequently submitted a representation dated 03.08.2024 seeking release of family pension and other terminal benefits. Respondent No. 4 had also filed Writ Petition No. 13090/2021, Neha Verma vs. Union of India and Others, seeking withholding of the service benefits, PF, gratuity, pension and other dues of Late Vinod Kumar till disposal of the divorce proceedings. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 23.01.2025 as having become infructuous, as the divorce petition had already been rejected. Another writ petition, Writ Petition No. 14355/2024, filed by the applicant, was also disposed of on 23.01.2025, with a direction to the concerned respondent to decide the applicant’s representation dated 03.08.2024 in accordance with law. Thereafter, on 28.03.2025, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order observing that the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of Late Vinod Kumar, was entitled to 50% family pension, while the remaining 50% was to be subject to the outcome of Succession Case No. 226/2021 filed by Respondent No. 4, and further directed processing of DCRG, GPF, CGEGIS, leave encashment and other terminal benefits in favour of the nominee/applicant. Pursuant thereto, certain amounts were released to the applicant through cheques dated 16.06.2025 and 04.07.2025. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 31.07.2025, asserting that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Vinod Kumar and is entitled to family pension and all terminal benefits payable on account of his death. Since the applicant remains aggrieved by the restriction of her entitlement to 50% family pension and the withholding of the remaining benefits on the ground of pendency of the succession proceedings, she has approached this Tribunal by filing the present Original Application.

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and submitted that pursuant to the judgment dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, a speaking order dated 28.03.2025 was issued for grant of terminal benefits and family pension to the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Vinod Kumar. It is stated that, under the applicable pension rules, the applicant is entitled to 50% share of family pension, while the remaining 50% is subject to the entitlement of Ms. Neha Verma, who claims to be the daughter of the deceased from his second wife and has filed Succession Case No. 226/2021, which is pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Agra. The respondents have further stated that various terminal benefits, including Leave Encashment, DRDO Benevolent Fund, GPF and CGEGIS, have already been paid to the applicant, whereas the remaining 50% family pension and DCRG could not be processed as PCDA (Pension), Allahabad advised that the entire pensionary entitlement is required to be determined before processing the claim under SPARSH. Accordingly, the respondents have maintained that the remaining benefits shall be processed after the final outcome of the aforesaid succession case.

By way of filing counter Respondent No. 4 has submitted that Late Shri Vinod Kumar had solemnized two marriages, the first with Smt. Sarla Devi and the second with Smt. Sushila Devi, from whom three children, including Respondent No. 4, were born. Late Shri Vinod Kumar, who was employed under the Ministry of Defence, died on 24.04.2021, whereafter disputes arose regarding his pensionary and other retiral benefits. Respondent No. 4 had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 13090/2021 seeking withholding of the service benefits till disposal of the divorce proceedings, which was subsequently dismissed as infructuous by the Hon’ble High Court on 23.01.2025. It is further submitted that the department, pursuant to the proceedings relating to Writ Petition No. 14355/2024, passed the order dated 28.03.2025 and thereafter released various amounts totalling Rs.13,11,279/-to Smt. Sarla Devi, whereas no amount was paid to the children of the second wife. Respondent No. 4 has alleged that such payment was made by wrongly interpreting the order of the Hon’ble High Court, despite Succession Case No. 226/2021 being pending, and has asserted that the entitlement to the remaining pensionary benefits ought to be determined only after adjudication of the said succession proceedings.

I heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. It is argued that, vide the impugned order, the respondents have withheld 50% of the family pension and have sanctioned only 50% thereof in favour of the applicant. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4 claims herself to be the daughter of Late Vinod Kumar. Since the applicant, being the first wife Central Administrative Tribunal^{of the deceased employee, is alive, no other person can claim family pension} during her lifetime. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order may be set aside to the extent of withholding 50% of the family pension and the entire family pension may be released in favour of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the official respondents submitted that, since a claim has been raised by respondent no. 4 for family pension as well as other retiral dues, claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased employee, the respondents have withheld 50% of the family pension. Referring to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, learned counsel further submitted that the other terminal benefits have already been released in favour of the applicant, including leave encashment, Benevolent Fund, GPF and CGEGIS amounts. It was further submitted that a letter has been addressed to the PCDA for release of 50% of the share of family pension and DCRG. However, the matter has been remanded for determination of the eligibility of the applicant as well as respondent no. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that a succession case filed before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, is still pending. Therefore, according to the respondents, the relief claimed in the present Original Application cannot be granted until the succession proceedings are decided. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that respondent no. 4, along with the children mentioned in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, are the legal heirs of the deceased employee, being the children born from his second marriage. It is argued that they cannot be deprived of their legitimate legal rights and are also entitled, in accordance with law, to the family pension and other retiral benefits of the deceased employee, who was their father. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431, and submitted that children born from a second marriage are legitimate children and are entitled to the benefits available to them under law. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the Original Central Administrative Tribunal^{Application and for a direction to the respondents to release the post-retiral} benefits in favour of respondent no. 4 and the other eligible children in accordance with law.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

The admitted facts between the parties are that Late Vinod Kumar, husband of the applicant, died while in service. The applicant is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. It is further evident from the record that both the applicant and respondent no. 4 approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court by filing Writ-A No. 13090 of 2021 and Writ-A No. 14355 of 2024, respectively, and both the writ petitions have been finally decided. It further appears that, in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ-A No. 14355 of 2024, the respondents passed the impugned order. It is also evident from the record that a succession case filed by respondent no. 4 is pending adjudication before the competent court. Further, it appears that a divorce petition was filed by the mother of respondent no. 4 before the concerned Family Court; however, the said petition was dismissed.

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that 50% of the family pension has been sanctioned in favour of the applicant, while the remaining 50% has been withheld pending the decision of the competent court in the succession case. From the pleadings of the parties, it is established that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Respondent no. 4 claims herself to be the daughter of the deceased employee, born out of his alleged wedlock with Smt. Sushila Devi. A specific pleading has been taken by respondent no. 4 that the deceased employee solemnised the second marriage with her mother with the consent of the applicant. This pleading itself indicates that the marriage between the applicant and the deceased employee was subsisting and had not been dissolved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431, has clearly held that a second marriage solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage under Hindu law is void and does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal^{High Court of Allahabad in Chandra Kali v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A} No. 3288 of 2017, decided on 31.07.2019, has also held the same. In view of the aforesaid legal position, respondent no. 4 cannot claim family pension in the capacity of children of second wife, and the applicant, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, is entitled to family pension in accordance with the applicable pension rules. Therefore, the impugned order, to the extent that 50% of the family pension has been withheld merely on the basis of the claim raised by respondent no. 4, cannot be sustained. The respondents cannot withhold the applicant’s share of family pension solely on account of such claim. The applicant shall be entitled to entire family pension during her lifetime. Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant to this extent deserves to be allowed.

As far as the retiral dues are concerned, the children born out of the wedlock of the deceased employee and the second wife are entitled to claim their lawful share in the post-retiral benefits, as the presumption of legitimacy operates in their favour. Since the succession proceedings initiated by respondent no. 4 are pending before the competent court and, from the stand taken by the official respondents in their counter affidavit, it is evident that the post-retiral benefits have already been released in favour of the applicant, except the DCRG, the remaining retiral dues, if any, are required to be disbursed in accordance with the order that may be passed in the succession proceedings. In case any amount under any head of terminal benefits has already been released in favour of the applicant, respondent no. 4 and the other children born out of the alleged second marriage may take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, for determination and enforcement of their entitlement to such amount. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no specific direction with regard to the retiral benefits including DCRG amount, as prayed for in relief clauses 8(2) and 8(3), can be issued on the basis of the pleadings contained in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents until the succession case is decided. Accordingly, the Original Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 28.03.2025, to the extent it withholds 50% of the family pension, is hereby set aside, and the respondents are directed to Central Administrative Tribunal^{release the withheld 50% share of the family pension in favour of the} applicant, along with arrears thereof, in accordance with the applicable pension rules. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the delayed payment shall carry interest at the applicable GPF rate. There shall be no order as to costs.

All connected Misc. Applications also stand disposed of.