A nominee cannot override the legally wedded wife’s statutory entitlement to family pension.

The petitioner, Smt. Shibani Dutta, claimed to be the legally wedded wife of late Sankar Dutta, a former Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, who retired on 28 February 2002 and died on 4 January 2021.

He had received his retiral benefits except DCRG and continued to draw pension until his death.

The parties were married in June 1970 and had two daughters.

Although Sankar Dutta instituted divorce proceedings against the petitioner, the proceeding was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 2 June 2010; no decree of divorce was ever passed.

The petitioner asserted that she had originally been nominated as the wife and beneficiary under the service records and the State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1982.

However, while processing the pension papers, the deceased employee nominated Smt. Gayatri Dutta by describing her as his wife.

On that basis, the PPO and GPO reflected Gayatri Dutta as the family pensioner.

The petitioner sought family pension, arrears, DCRG and interest for delayed payment under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a person nominated by a deceased Government employee as his wife can claim family pension despite not falling within the statutory definition of “family” under Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969?

2. Whether the nomination of Smt. Gayatri Dutta could override the petitioner’s statutory entitlement as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration and release of family pension, arrears and DCRG, subject to verification by the competent authorities?

The Court applied Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which defines “family” for family-pension purposes and includes the wife of a male Government servant as the primary beneficiary, with pension thereafter devolving upon eligible children in the prescribed circumstances.

Family pension is a statutory entitlement governed by the Pension Rules and does not arise merely from nomination.

A nomination is generally an administrative mechanism facilitating payment and does not confer beneficial ownership or override the rights of the person legally entitled under the governing statute, as recognised in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424, and Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta, (2009) 10 SCC 680.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid earlier marriage is void; therefore, a person described as a second wife cannot acquire the legal status of a wife for claiming family pension where the first marriage remained undissolved.

The Court also followed Tinku Das v. State of Assam, WP(C) No. 6073 of 2019, which held that a woman claiming to be the second wife of a Hindu Government employee is not entitled to family pension where the first marriage subsisted.

The Court found that the petitioner’s marriage with the deceased employee was never dissolved by a competent court because the divorce proceeding had been dismissed for non-prosecution.

Consequently, she continued to be his legally wedded wife at the time of his death and fell within the definition of “family” under Rule 143.

The later nomination of Gayatri Dutta, even accompanied by a description of her as the deceased’s wife, could not create a substantive entitlement contrary to the Pension Rules.

The Court also relied on the earlier service and insurance records, which identified the petitioner as the wife and beneficiary, as corroborating her marital status.

Although the PPO and GPO had been issued in favour of Gayatri Dutta, those administrative documents could not validate an otherwise ineligible claim or defeat the petitioner’s statutory entitlement.

However, because the authorities had not independently determined all questions of eligibility and entitlement, the Court directed fresh verification before actual payment.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the competent authorities to verify the petitioner’s claim, recognise her as the lawful beneficiary if found eligible, correct the PPO and GPO where necessary, and release the family pension, consequential arrears, and admissible DCRG and other retiral benefits.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.