Compromise settlement for family pension judicially recognized; subsequent contradictory claim barred by estoppel and res judicata.

The applicant, Zahida Begum, is the first wife of the deceased Mohd. Sadiq, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department who died in harness on May 21, 2018.

Mohd. Sadiq had contracted a second marriage with Yasmeen Begum without obtaining prior permission.

After his demise, disputes arose between the two wives regarding the settlement of family pension and gratuity.

A compromise deed was executed on February 11, 2019, agreeing to share family pension and gratuity 50% between the two wives and distribute gratuity equally among seven family members.

This compromise was not accepted by the respondent-department for sanctioning benefits.

Subsequently, the learned Munsiff, Udhampur, passed a decree on May 20, 2019, based on the compromise deed, declaring both wives and their children as legal heirs.

Despite this decree, the respondents did not settle the family pension or release the gratuity to the applicant.

The respondents initially intimated that the second wife would only be entitled if the marriage was contracted with prior permission under Rule 22(a) of Schedule XV of the J&K Civil Service Regulations.

The applicant relied on the compromise deed, the Munsiff's decree, and Rule 22 of the J&K Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964, claiming eligibility as a nominee.

Earlier, the second wife, Yasmeen Begum, had approached the Tribunal in T.A. No. 197/2020, seeking family pension.

In that case, based on the compromise and civil court decree, the Tribunal allowed the claim of Yasmeen Begum for family pension.

The compromise in the previous case stipulated that the son of the first wife would get compassionate appointment and the second wife would receive family pension exclusively.

Death-cum-retiral benefits were to be distributed equally.

The respondents stated that compassionate appointment under SRO-43 and other benefits like leave salary, welfare fund, and GP fund had already been distributed among the seven legal heirs as per the compromise and civil court decree.

The Accountant General (A&E) had subsequently directed that family claims in favour of both wives could be furnished on the basis of 50% share each in terms of Rule 22(a)(i) of Schedule XV of J&K CSR Volume-II, subject to the pension sanctioning authority's satisfaction.

However, the official respondents also stated that the family pension case for Smt. Yasmeen Begum remained pending with the Accountant General, Jammu, and no final order from T.A. No. 197/2020 had been received by the department confirming a 50% share for both wives.

The official respondents contended that the matter was under process and the application was premature.

Whether the applicant (first wife), having entered into a compromise deed and being a party to a civil court decree that specifically allocated family pension exclusively to the second wife, can now claim a 50% share in the family pension.

Whether the present Original Application seeking a 50% share in family pension is an attempt to unsettle a previous adjudication by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 197/2020, which upheld the entitlement of the second wife to family pension based on the same compromise and decree.

The court applied the doctrine of estoppel and the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate, asserting that a litigant cannot accept a decree's beneficial aspects while challenging others.

It also considered the principle of constructive res judicata, stating that issues already adjudicated or that ought to have been adjudicated in previous proceedings between the same parties cannot be re-agitated.

The court referred to Rule 22 of the J&K CSR Vol. II (specifically Note 2) concerning the entitlement to family pension in cases of multiple wives, noting that it provides for equal sharing in the absence of a lawful inter-se arrangement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, Zahida Begum, voluntarily entered into a compromise deed and provided an affidavit of no objection, which was subsequently incorporated into a decree by a competent Civil Court (Munsiff, Udhampur/Samba).

This compromise explicitly stipulated that the son of the first wife would receive compassionate appointment, and the second wife would exclusively receive the family pension.

The Tribunal had previously examined this very controversy in T.A. No. 197/2020, allowing the second wife's claim for family pension in accordance with the compromise and decree.

The court noted that the compromise was acted upon and the decree remains unchallenged.

By accepting benefits under the compromise (such as compassionate appointment for her son), the applicant is now estopped from claiming a contrary relief, as a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate.

The argument that Rule 22 mandates equal sharing was deemed untenable because, while Rule 22 allows for equal sharing in the absence of arrangements, in this case, the entitlement was settled through a judicially recognized compromise and decree.

The present application was deemed an attempt to indirectly unsettle a previous adjudication of the Tribunal, attracting the principle of constructive res judicata.

Granting relief would contradict the earlier operative order and create an anomalous situation.

The applicant's claim for a 50% share in family pension was rejected because she had consented to a compromise and a subsequent civil court decree that exclusively allocated family pension to the second wife, and this arrangement had been previously upheld by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 197/2020.

The court held that the applicant was estopped from claiming contrary relief after having accepted the benefits of the compromise, and that the principle of constructive res judicata was squarely attracted.

No order was made as to costs.