G L BHATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 (1991 (1) SCC 725), 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: