Amrita Sharma vs BSNL

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00302 of 2025
Order reserved on: 01.10.2026

Order pronounced on:22.10.2026


Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Amrita Sharma, aged about 62 years, wife of Late Ram Vilas
Vishwakarma, R/o House No. 8-C/530, Vrindavan Yojana, Raebareli
Road, Lucknow.
……… Applicant

By Advocate: Shri Neelesh Kumar


VERSUS

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunications, Delhi.
2. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Lucknow.
3. Account Officer (Pension), Department of Telecommunications,
Office of the Controller of Communication Account, U.P. East CCA
Building, T.C. Campus, Vikas Khand-1, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
4. Account Officer (Pension), Office of Principal General Manager
Telecom Division (P.G.M.T.D), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Kaisharbagh, Lucknow.
5. Amit Vishwakarma, son of Late Ram Vilas Vishwakarma, R/o
House No. 8-C/530, Vrindavan Yojana, Raebareli Road, Lucknow.

…..Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
Shri G. S. Sikarwar
Shri Gaurav Vishwakarma

ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to family pension, the applicant has sought
following reliefs:
“(a) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents
to restore full family pension to the applicant as earlier.
(b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to pay arrears of 50% family pension to the applicant
Page 1 of 7

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


from the month the same was deducted i.e. w.e.f. month July, 2024
along with interest @ 12 % per annual.
(c) The Hon’ble Court Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to stop paying 50% family pension to the opposite party
no. 5 forthwith.
(d) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite
parties to consider and decide the presentation of the applicant
dated 14.02.2025 in accordance with law.
(e) Any other suitable order or direction may also be passed in favour of
the applicant which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is the second wife of
Ram Vilas Vishwakarma who retired from the post of Divisional
Engineer under the respondents on 31.08.2019 and breathed his last
on 26.05.2021. The first wife of the deceased employee is survived by
four children, including respondent no. 5. After the death of Ram Vilas
Vishwakarma, the applicant was in receipt of family pension. However,
the respondents divided the family pension equally between the
applicant and the respondent no. 5 in the year 2024 against which the
applicant represented to respondent no. 2 on 02.09.2024, 17.09.2024
and 14.02.2025. Not having elicited a positive response, the applicant
approached Hon’ble High Court in Writ – A No. 4525 of 2025 which
came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 25.04.2025 with the liberty to
approach this Tribunal. Hence, this OA.
3. The applicant contends that her family pension has been
reduced by half and the other half of the family pension has been given
to respondent no. 5 by respondents no. 1 to 4 behind her back on the
basis of forged and fabricated certificate of handicap. Her other
contention is that in Civil Suit No. 2264/2021, the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Lucknow granted decree on 12.03.2022 in terms of
the compromise dated 21.02.2022 between her and the legal heirs of
the deceased employee’s first wife in which it was provided that she
Page 2 of 7

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


would continue to get the family pension and other parties shall have
no legal claim on it.
4.1 Respondents no. 1 and 3 state that through office memorandum
(OM) dated 19.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Communication, it has
been clarified that succession certificate under the Indian Succession
Act, 1952 can be granted only in respect of debts or securities to which
the deceased employee was entitled and that the gratuity and the family
pension are neither debt nor security of the deceased employee or the
pensioner and payment of gratuity and family pension are governed as
per the statutory rules, i.e., the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
2021 (Pension Rules, hereafter). They further state that the Form-3
filled in by the deceased employee on 16.08.2019 mentioned respondent
no. 5 as his disabled son and that 50% of family pension has been
authorized to respondent no. 5 as per rule 50(8)(c) of the Pension Rules.
4.2 Similar averments have been made in the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 4 who additionally state that family
pension to handicapped child is governed by rule 50(8)(e), 50(9)(h) and
50(11)(c) of the Pension Rules; they also aver that the disability
certificate in respect of respondent no. 5 was verified by the Chief
Medical Officer, Lucknow vide letter dated 19.07.2023.
4.3 Respondent no. 5 contends that he is the son of the deceased
employee and that he is 55% physically disabled as certified by the
Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. He states that he approached the
Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 66 of 2023 for grant of
family pension which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated
30.01.2023 directing the respondents to decide his pending
representation. He avers that respondent no. 3 passed order dated
12.08.2024 granting 50% family pension to him, but the payment of
family pension to him was stopped subsequently by respondent no. 2
Page 3 of 7

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


vide order dated 05.10.2024 on the applicant’s representation dated
02.09.2024 against which he approached Allahabad Bench of this
Tribunal again in OA No. 1449/2024.
4.5 In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has attached the
judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed in OA No. 1449 of 2024
by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal.
5. Heard the parties.
6.1 It is noted that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (Pension Rules)
have been notified on 20.12.2021 in exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the
Constitution.
6.2 Rule 50 of the Pension Rules governs family pension. Clause (e)
of sub-rule (8) of rule 50 reads as follows:
“ (e) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is
survived by a widow without any child eligible for family pension
but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who
is not alive, the child or children who fulfil the eligibility
conditions mentioned in sub-rule (9) shall be entitled to the share
of family pension which the mother would have received if she had
been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or
pensioner and on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a
child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such
share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or
widows and/or to other child or children otherwise eligible in accordance
with sub-rule (9), in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in
full, to such widow or child:
Provided that if the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived
by the widow with child or children eligible for family pension, on the
share of family pension payable to the widow ceasing to be payable, such
share shall be payable to her child or children in accordance with clause
(c) and sub-rule (9)..”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus the children left behind by the deceased Government servant or
pensioner from another wife who is not alive would also be eligible for
family pension if they fulfil eligibility conditions mentioned in sub-rule
(9).
Page 4 of 7

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


6.3 The claim of respondent no. 5 to family pension is referable to
clause (h) of sub-rule (9) of rule 50 of the Pension Rules quoted below:
“ (h) Where a deceased Government servant or pensioner is not survived by
a son or daughter below the age of twenty-five years and eligible for
family pension or where such son or daughter has died or has ceased to
be eligible for family pension, the family pension shall be payable for
life to a son or daughter who is suffering from any disorder or
disability of mind including the mentally retarded or is physically
disabled or suffering from any other disability referred to in the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) so as to
render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the
age of twenty-five years, subject to the following conditions,
namely :-
(i) the disability existed before the death of the Government servant or
pensioner and his or her spouse;
….
(v) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or
daughter, the appointing authority shall satisfy that the disability
is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or
her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate
obtained from,-
(A) an authority competent to issue disability certificate in
accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (49 of 2016), the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2017 and the guidelines and notifications issued by the Central
Government or a State Government or a Union territory
administration; or
(B) a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Superintendent or a
Principal or a Director or Head of the Institution or his nominee
as Chairman and two other members, out of which at least one
shall be a Specialist in the particular area of disability, setting
out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of
the child. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus a disabled son or daughter of deceased Government servant who
is unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years is
eligible for family pension provided that the appointing authority is
satisfied through the procedure prescribed in sub-clauses (v) (A) or (v)
(B) of clause (h) that such son or daughter is unable to earn livelihood
due to such disability.
6.4 It is evident from the above that the Pension Rules provide for
grant of family pension to disabled son or daughter of the deceased
Government servant from another wife who is not alive. Accordingly, the
Page 5 of 7

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


respondent no. 5, who is the son of the deceased Government servant
from the first wife, can lay claim to family pension on ground of
disability. In view of the specific provision in the statutory rules
enabling consideration of grant of family pension to the son of the
deceased Government servant from the first wife on ground of disability,
any agreement entered by the applicant and respondent no. 5 which is
contrary to such provision would not have any enforceability in law.
6.5 It is observed that the applicant’s claim that the disability
certificate of respondent no. 5 is forged and fabricated has been made
without supporting evidence and that it stands rebutted by respondents
no. 2 and 4 who have clarified that the disability certificate in respect of
respondent no. 5 was verified by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow
vide letter dated 19.07.2023.
6.6. It is further noted that in the OA No. 1449 of 2024 adjudicated
by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, the respondent no. 5 herein
was the applicant and the applicant herein was arrayed as respondent
no. 4. The judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 therein is extracted
below:
“Heard Shri Gaurav Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and
Shri Devi Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the official respondents as
well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the private
respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
approached this Tribunal for releasing of family pension in favour of the
applicant. He further submits that by the efflux of time, instant Original
Application has become infructuous as the applicant has been
granted family pension and same has been credited in the account
of applicant on 25.09.2025 and as such, same may be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object the same.
4. Accordingly, instant original application stands dismissed as
infructuous.”
(emphasis supplied)
It is observed that the applicant herein, who was private respondent no.
4 in OA No. 1449/2024, did not object to grant of family pension to
Page 6 of 7

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA 332/00302 of 2025 Amrita Sharma Vs. UoI & Ors.


respondent no. 5 herein, who was the applicant in that OA. Having
acquiesced in grant of family pension to respondent no. 5 in OA No.
1449/2024, the applicant is estopped from challenging the same in the
present lis .
7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of
merit.
7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)
Member (A)


Vidya
Vidya Ben
Waghela
Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Date: 2026.10.22
14:36:39 +05'30'
Page 7 of 7