Authority directed to decide representation regarding conflicting family pension claims by rival spouses in a time-bound manner.

The applicant, Dayawati, claiming to be the first legally wedded wife of late HC Hawa Singh (retired 30.11.2002, died 07.01.2016), was initially granted family pension by the respondents.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 (Sunita) challenged this, leading to a series of litigations.

In O.A. No. 1468/2017, the Tribunal directed the respondents to finalize Sunita's family pension claim in light of an April 2001 Additional Session Judge's decision.

This order was upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4473/2019, which specified that if Sunita were found entitled, payments would be prospective.

The applicant's subsequent SLP (C) No. 23292/2024 was disposed of by the Supreme Court without examining the merits.

Consequently, the applicant submitted a representation dated 31.01.2025 for continuation of benefits, which remained undecided, prompting the present O.A.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide upon the applicant's representation regarding the continuation of pensionary benefits in light of the Supreme Court's observations in SLP (C) No. 23292/2024.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle of administrative adjudication and procedural fairness, directing the executive to exercise its statutory discretion.

It relied on the judicial observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 23292/2024, which allowed for the disposal of the matter while keeping the merits of the rival claims open.

The Tribunal further noted the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4473/2019, which balanced the competing claims of the alleged widows by directing a fresh administrative decision.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had restricted her prayer to a request for a time-bound disposal of her pending representation dated 31.01.2025.

Since the respondents expressed no objection to this limited prayer, the Tribunal found no necessity to adjudicate the substantive merits of the competing claims between the two wives.

The court reasoned that given the history of litigation reaching the Supreme Court, the competent authority must pass a speaking order to resolve the administrative impasse regarding the disbursement of family pension.

By directing a time-bound decision, the Tribunal ensured that the applicant's right to a reasoned administrative response was upheld without overstepping into the merits of the underlying matrimonial or pensionary dispute.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated 31.01.2025 in accordance with the law and the Supreme Court’s observations within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.