Disputed marital status and consequential family-pension entitlement must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.

Late Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, died while on duty on 8 April 2025.

The petitioner, Pramila Devi, claimed to be his mother and sought family pension and other admissible dues.

Respondent No. 5, Soni Kumari Pathak, claimed to be the deceased employee’s legally wedded wife, and her name appeared in the Pension Payment Order.

The Union of India stated that the deceased had two children, Aditi Mishra and Aditya Raj Mishra, born from his relationship with respondent No. 5.

The counter-affidavit further disclosed that Divya Kumari claimed to be the deceased’s first wife and had furnished a no-objection in favour of respondent No. 5, asserting that she had no children.

Respondent No. 5 relied upon a marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj, Yamuna Bazar, Delhi.

The Union also stated that risk fund benefits had been sanctioned in favour of the deceased’s parents at Rs. 3,12,500 each.

The Court considered Rule 81(2)(a)(i), Chapter X, of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, read with Rule 54, concerning the grant of family pension to the widow or widower of a deceased Government employee.

The Court applied the principle that disputed questions concerning marital status, legitimacy, and consequential entitlement to pensionary benefits ordinarily require adjudication by a competent civil court on the basis of evidence and are not appropriately determined finally in writ jurisdiction.

The Court also recognised that the deceased employee’s biological children were entitled to pensionary benefits admissible to them under the applicable statutory provisions.

Although the petitioner established that she was the deceased employee’s mother, her claim to family pension could not be determined independently of the competing claims of Divya Kumari and respondent No. 5, both of whom claimed status as the deceased’s wife.

The Pension Payment Order reflected respondent No. 5’s name, while the counter-affidavit referred to Divya Kumari as the first wife and recorded her no-objection in favour of respondent No. 5.

These circumstances raised disputed questions of fact regarding marital status and entitlement.

Applying the rule that such disputes require evidentiary adjudication before a competent civil court, the Court declined to record a definitive finding on the petitioner’s entitlement in writ proceedings.

At the same time, the Court found that the two biological children’s entitlement to their lawful pensionary shares could not be ignored and directed the competent authority to reconsider their benefits.

It held that the two biological children of the deceased employee, Aditi Mishra and Aditya Raj Mishra, were entitled to pensionary benefits admissible to them under law.

The competent authority was directed to re-examine the information contained in paragraph 29 of the Union’s counter-affidavit and disburse the children’s lawful shares in accordance with the applicable rules.

Any aggrieved party was left free to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.