Eligible Disabled Son From First Marriage Keeps Half Family Pension As CAT Rejects Second Wife’s Challenge

The applicant, the second wife of a deceased BSNL employee, received family pension after his death in 2021.

In 2024, the authorities divided the pension equally between her and respondent no. 5, the deceased employee’s adult son from his first wife, on the basis of his claimed disability.

The applicant alleged that the disability certificate was forged and relied on a compromise decree stating that the other parties would have no claim to the pension.

The respondents maintained that respondent no. 5 was eligible under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and that his disability certificate had been verified by the Chief Medical Officer.

In separate proceedings brought by respondent no. 5, the Allahabad Bench recorded that family pension had been credited to him and dismissed his application as infructuous; the applicant, then a private respondent, did not object.

She then brought the present OA seeking restoration of the full pension and recovery of arrears.

Rule 50(8)(e) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides that eligible children of a deceased employee or pensioner from another wife who is no longer alive may receive the share of family pension the mother would have received, subject to the rule’s conditions.

Under Rule 50(9)(h), a son or daughter with a qualifying disability that renders them unable to earn a livelihood may be eligible for family pension for life, subject to the prescribed conditions; Rule 50(9)(h)(v) requires the appointing authority to be satisfied of the disability and its effect on earning capacity on the basis of the specified certificate or medical-board assessment.

The Tribunal further held that an agreement contrary to the statutory pension rules cannot defeat an entitlement available under those rules, and that the applicant was estopped from challenging the grant after acquiescing in the earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the rules permit an eligible disabled child of the deceased employee’s first wife to claim family pension, and therefore the compromise relied on by the applicant could not override a statutory entitlement.

It also rejected the allegation that respondent no. 5’s disability certificate was fabricated, noting that the applicant had offered no supporting evidence and that the authorities stated it had been verified by the Chief Medical Officer.

Finally, the Tribunal relied on the applicant’s failure to object when respondent no. 5’s pension had been credited and his earlier OA was dismissed as infructuous, concluding that she had acquiesced and was estopped from challenging the payment in the present proceedings.

The associated MAs were disposed of, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.