A remarried widow qualifies for extraordinary family pension only upon proving communal life or dependent support.

Late Shri Jai Bhagwan was initially engaged as a casual labourer in 1984 and regularised with effect from 02.08.1995. He died in service on 03.08.1995, after which family pension was sanctioned to his widow, Sushila Devi, with effect from 04.08.1995.

The applicant subsequently obtained compassionate appointment as an Electrical Khalasi with the Northern Railway from 01.07.1997. On 17.04.1999, she informed the respondents that she had remarried Balwant Singh, the brother of her deceased husband, whereupon her family pension was stopped.

Family pension was thereafter granted to her daughter from the earlier marriage, but it ceased after the daughter’s marriage in 2016.

The applicant’s son, Manjit Sharma, subsequently claimed family pension. The respondents questioned his eligibility because his school certificate recorded his date of birth as 27.09.1996, whereas the applicant’s first husband had died on 03.08.1995.

Her subsequent application for extraordinary family pension was rejected by communication dated 10.11.2021/2022. After withdrawing an earlier OA with liberty to file a better application, she instituted the present proceedings seeking family/extraordinary family pension from 01.08.2016, with interest and other reliefs.

1. Whether the applicant, having remarried the brother of her deceased husband, satisfied the conditions under Rule 14 of the Railway Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1993 for grant of extraordinary family pension?

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim for extraordinary family pension was arbitrary or legally unsustainable?

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 14 of the Railway Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides that a widow who remarries her deceased husband’s brother shall not be disqualified from receiving otherwise admissible extraordinary pension if she continues to live a communal life with, or contributes to the support of, the deceased employee’s other dependants.

The Tribunal derived four cumulative requirements: remarriage to the deceased employee’s brother; continued communal life with the deceased’s dependants; contribution towards their support; and otherwise satisfying the eligibility requirements under the Rules.

The applicant relied on decisions including Sukhjeet Kaur v. Union of India, OA No.060/1363/2021 (Kasmir Kaur), and OA No.2822/2016 (Renu Gupta), but the Tribunal held that those cases were factually or legally distinguishable.

The Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied only the first requirement, as her remarriage to her deceased husband’s brother was undisputed.

She failed to establish that she continued to live communally with any dependant of the deceased employee because her daughter was married and no satisfactory proof was produced that Manjit Sharma was the son of late Shri Jai Bhagwan. Consequently, the communal-life requirement was not met.

The applicant also failed to show that she was contributing to the support of any other dependant; her daughter was married and living with her husband, and no other dependant was identified or proved to be supported by the applicant.

Further, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had secured compassionate employment and remained in service, indicating that the case did not involve the kind of extraordinary financial distress warranting reconsideration.

On these facts, the respondents’ rejection was not found to be arbitrary or illegal.

In particular, she failed to prove communal living with, or financial support of, any dependant of the deceased employee.

The Original Application was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.