BENCH: Justice Amit Rawal & Justice K. V. Jayakumar
FACTS:
S. Sathikumari Amma, the respondent in this case, is the widow of the late Gopalakrishna Pillai, who served as a Postal Assistant before opting for voluntary retirement in 2003. Gopalakrishna Pillai continued to receive a pension until his passing in 2013. At the time of his retirement, he had expressly stated his intention to exclude his wife, Sathikumari Amma, and their daughter from his official service records as family members. Furthermore, he submitted a formal request for the removal of their names from his service book and filed an additional application claiming that he had divorced his wife.
Following his demise, Sathikumari Amma approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking entitlement to the family pension along with accrued interest. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant. It directed the Union of India and other respondents to release the family pension to Sathikumari Amma, along with interest, until either her death or remarriage.
ISSUES:
The key issue in this case was whether the family pension could be considered part of the property or estate of a deceased employee, and whether an employee’s action of removing the names of his wife and other dependents from his service records, while still married, would affect the entitlement to such pension. Specifically, it sought to determine whether the exclusion of a spouse and dependents from service records during the course of a valid marriage could impact the legal claim to family pension upon the employee's death.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court held that family pension is not considered a debt or security. Consequently, the executive authorities cannot require the production of a succession certificate for the disbursement of family pension. The Central Administrative Tribunal, having considered these factors, granted the original application along with interest. Upon reviewing the case, we find no illegality, let alone any fallacy, in the impugned order.
Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Jodh Singh v. Union of India (1980) and Smt. Violet Isaac and others v. Union of India and others (1991), the Bench said, “...it is clear that family pension is not an estate or property of the employee. Therefore, an employee cannot make a representation that his legally wedded wife or other dependants are not entitled to claim the family pension. Family pension unlike the other pensionary benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc, could not be a subject matter of testamentary disposition by the employee during his lifetime. In other words, an employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another nor he can nominate some other person for receiving family pension other than the one who is entitled to it. An employee cannot exclude his wife or children from receiving the family pension on his death, by making an application in this regard.”
Returning to the facts of the present case, the employee submitted a representation to the postal authorities requesting the removal of his wife and daughter from his service records, with the intent to disqualify them from receiving the family pension upon his death. This also helped the Court in its decision.
ANALYSIS:
This case revolves around the entitlement of family pension following the death of Gopalakrishna Pillai, a retired Postal Assistant. At the time of his retirement, Pillai requested that his wife, S. Sathikumari Amma, and their daughter be excluded from his service records as family members, and he also claimed to have divorced his wife. However, upon his passing in 2013, Sathikumari Amma sought the family pension from the Union of India, arguing that she was entitled to it despite her husband's prior actions. The central issue was whether the family pension could be considered part of the deceased's estate, and whether the removal of her name from the service records during a valid marriage could affect her entitlement to the pension.
In its judgment, the Court emphasized that family pension is not a debt or property of the employee and cannot be disposed of as part of an estate. The Court referred to earlier rulings, specifically Jodh Singh v. Union of India (1980) and Smt. Violet Isaac and others v. Union of India and others (1991), establishing that family pension is not subject to testamentary disposition, nor can an employee alter the legal entitlement of family members to receive it after death. Consequently, the Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to grant the family pension to Sathikumari Amma, ruling that an employee cannot exclude his spouse or children from receiving the family pension by making a request to remove their names from official records.
info@adhwaitha.com
