Administrative Authorities Must Sanction Family Pension Upon Verification of Valid Remarriage Documents Following First Spouse's Demise

The applicant, Mrs. Tanveer Anwar, sought a direction for the sanction of a family pension following the death of her husband, Shri Nisar Ahmed, a retired Railway Junior Engineer, who passed away on May 30, 2021.

The deceased’s first wife had died on January 10, 2017.

Subsequently, the pensioner married the applicant via a Nikahnama on September 14, 2019, which was later registered with the Registrar of Marriages on December 9, 2019.

Following the pensioner's death, the applicant applied for a family pension. The respondent's Welfare Inspector conducted an inquiry but submitted an adverse report, claiming a lack of "conclusive proof" of the second marriage.

Consequently, the claim was rejected, leading the applicant to file this Original Application.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a family pension as the legally wedded second wife (following the death of the first wife) based on the evidence provided

2. Whether the Welfare Inspector’s inquiry report, claiming a lack of conclusive proof of marriage, was legally sustainable given the documents available

The court applied the statutory principles governing the grant of family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules (implied) and the general principles of administrative law requiring a fair and diligent inquiry.

The court prioritized the legal validity of a marriage registered under the Registrar of Marriages and documented religious ceremonies (Nikahnama) as sufficient proof of marital status for pensionary benefits.

It further relied on the principle that administrative negligence or "careless conduct" by an inquiry officer should not deprive a citizen of their legal entitlements.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had provided substantial documentary evidence, including the Nikahnama, the Marriage Registration Certificate, and a certificate from the Deputy Collector.

The Tribunal noted that the Welfare Inspector was aware of these documents, as evidenced by his own correspondence with the mosque and the Registrar of Marriages for verification.

The court reasoned that since the documents were already in the Inspector’s possession, the failure to complete the formal verification was a result of the Inspector's "negligence" or "lack of diligence".

The court found that the adverse report was "incorrect and misleading" because physical verification was within the Inspector's power but was ignored, forcing the applicant into unnecessary litigation.

It held that the applicant had produced sufficient proof of marriage and directed the respondents to process the grant of family pension along with arrears effective from May 30, 2021.

Additionally, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider removing the concerned Welfare Inspector from his current assignment and to record the court's observations regarding his "improper conduct" in his service assessment.

No costs were ordered.