Children of a second marriage are entitled to family pension irrespective of the marriage’s validity, subject to applicable rules.

The applicants, Hari Niwas and Shridevi, were the children of Fakire Lal, who retired as a Tailor from Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, on 31 December 2002 and died on 24 December 2005 while receiving pension.

Fakire Lal’s first wife had died in 1990 and his second wife, Siya Devi, died in 2004; the applicants were children of the second wife and were minors—approximately six and four years old, respectively—when their father died.

The applicants claimed entitlement to family pension until attaining 25 years of age. Their names had been disclosed by Fakire Lal in his nomination form, but the respondents did not sanction family pension, principally because information concerning the income and marital status of the son of the first wife had not been furnished.

The applicants sought payment of family pension and arrears, or alternatively a direction to decide their application dated 9 August 2021.

Whether the applicants, as children of the deceased employee’s second wife and minors at the time of his death, were entitled to family pension under the applicable rules.

Whether the respondents could deny or defer the applicants’ family-pension claim on the ground that information regarding the income or marital status of the children of the deceased employee’s first wife had not been supplied.

Whether the respondents were required to pass a reasoned and speaking order granting family pension from the date on which the applicants became eligible.

The Tribunal applied the general rules governing family pension and the principle that children born from a second marriage are entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits, whether or not the marriage is legally valid, subject to the applicable service rules.

The entitlement of an eligible child is to be assessed on the basis of that child’s status and the governing pension rules; it cannot be defeated by matters unrelated to the child’s own eligibility, such as the income or marital status of other heirs.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The respondents admitted that the applicants were Fakire Lal’s children, that they were minors when he died, and that both wives had predeceased him.

Their names were also recorded in the deceased employee’s nomination form.

The Tribunal held that the financial position or marital status of the children of the first wife had no bearing on the applicants’ independent entitlement to family pension.

It further held that children of a second marriage could not be denied family pension merely on account of the validity of that marriage, provided the applicable rules were satisfied.

Since the respondents had accepted the applicants’ identity and relationship with the deceased employee, the refusal to process their claim on an unrelated ground was unsustainable.

The competent authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order granting family pension to the applicants from the date on which they became eligible and entitled, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If the direction was not complied with within that period, simple interest at 6% per annum would become payable.

No order as to costs was made, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.