Denying family pension based on a discreet inquiry without hearing the claimant violates principles of natural justice.

The applicant is the widow of Late Shri E. Thanga Nadar, a retired Postman who superannuated on 31.03.1978

Following the death of the pensioner’s first wife on 31.01.2014, the applicant married the pensioner on 07.01.2015

The pensioner subsequently died on 28.02.2017

The applicant’s initial claims for family pension were rejected in 2019, leading to OA No. 525/2020, wherein the Tribunal directed the respondent to consider her claim

In the purported compliance, the respondent issued an impugned order dated 15.03.2023 (alternatively cited as 15.03.2022) rejecting the claim again

The rejection was based on a "discreet inquiry" that alleged inconsistencies in the marriage date and doubts regarding the authenticity of the marriage certificate issued by a temple

The applicant challenged this rejection, alleging a violation of natural justice as the inquiry was conducted behind her back

1. Whether the respondent’s rejection of the family pension claim was legally sustainable and in compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier directions for objective consideration

2. Whether the respondent violated the principles of natural justice by relying on an ex-parte inquiry to dispute the validity of the applicant's marriage without providing her an opportunity to rebut the findings

The court primarily applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), which necessitates that an applicant be given an opportunity to substantiate a claim through evidence when an authority intends to rely on adverse inquiry reports

The court also recognized the legal principle that there is no bar against a retired employee contracting a valid marriage post-retirement, nor is a post-retirement spouse barred from claiming family pension under applicable service rules

The Tribunal observed that the respondent’s rejection was "mechanical" and failed to meaningfully implement the directions issued in the previous round of litigation

The court noted that the first wife’s death was undisputed, meaning no legal impediment existed for the second marriage

Crucially, the Tribunal found that the respondent had conducted a "discreet inquiry" through a Mail Overseer and arrived at adverse conclusions regarding the marriage certificate without putting the applicant on notice

The court reasoned that in matters of family pension, authorities must adopt a "fair, reasonable, and judicious approach"

Because the respondent failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to produce oral or documentary evidence to resolve discrepancies regarding the marriage date and certificate, the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed and violated natural justice

The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s claim for family pension afresh, ensuring a "meaningful and objective consideration"

The respondents were specifically ordered to provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and allow her to submit additional supporting documents

A reasoned and speaking order must be passed within three months, and if found eligible, the pension and arrears must be disbursed within a further eight weeks

The OA was allowed to this extent with no order as to costs