Dual Family Pension Entitlement Vests in Children of First Deceased Wife and Surviving Second Wife

The applicants are the children of Late Mohammad Sultan Handoo, a Chowkidar in the Geology and Mining Department who died in harness on 17.12.2019.

The deceased left behind three children from his first marriage (the first wife being deceased) and a second wife, Mst. Rafiya Banoo.

While death gratuity was distributed among the heirs, the family pension was sanctioned exclusively in favor of the second wife.

The applicants approached the Tribunal seeking a proportionate share of the family pension, alleging that the Department of Geology and Mining and the Accountant General (AG) were "passing the buck" regarding the authority to rectify the pension records.

1. Whether the children from the first marriage of a deceased government employee are entitled to a share of the family pension alongside the surviving second wife.

2. Whether the primary responsibility to sanction and rectify the entitlement conditions of family pension rests with the parent department or the Accountant General.

Rule 15(i) of Schedule XV of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), which mandates that children from a deceased first wife are entitled to 50% of the family pension, while the surviving second wife is entitled to the remaining 50%, provided the second marriage was legally contracted.

While the AG authorizes payments, the official sanction must originate from the Pension Sanctioning Authority (the parent department).

The Tribunal observed that the Geology and Mining Department and the Office of the AG were each disclaiming jurisdiction over the matter.

Written submissions from the AG clarified the legal position under the J&K CSR, asserting that a 50-50 split is mandatory between the children of the first wife and the surviving second wife.

The Tribunal found that the parent department (Geology and Mining) had failed to exercise its mind in recommending the correct proportions in the pension papers, leading to a family dispute that should have been resolved administratively through the application of Rule 15(i).

The Tribunal determined that keeping the litigation pending served no purpose given the clear statutory rules.

The Court ordered the parent department to hear all stakeholders (the applicants and the second wife) and pass appropriate orders regarding the proportionate distribution of the family pension within six weeks.