Employer may demand a succession certificate to resolve rival family pension claims involving multiple spouses.

The applicants, Abhishek Kumar and Babita Kumari, are the legal heirs of the deceased original applicant, Asha Devi. Asha Devi was the first wife of late Sudhakar Jha, an Ex-SS/Traffic employee of North Frontier Railway who retired voluntarily on 04.11.2010 and died on 21.05.2017

During his service, Jha consistently declared another woman, Sulochana Devi, as his wife in family declarations between 1994 and 2010

Following a show-cause notice regarding this misconduct, Jha corrected his nomination to Asha Devi in 2011

After Jha’s death, Asha Devi sought family pension, but the Railway authorities withheld it due to the existence of two wives and conflicting service records

Despite both wives submitting affidavits for equal distribution of pension, the respondents insisted on a succession certificate from a competent court to resolve the dispute

Asha Devi died during the pendency of the claim without producing said certificate, leading her children to pursue the arrears as her legal representatives

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in withholding the family pension of the deceased employee in the absence of a succession certificate despite a change in nomination by the employee

2. Whether the legal heirs of a deceased claimant are entitled to arrears of family pension when the primary entitlement of the claimant was never established during her lifetime

nomination in service records does not confer an absolute right to family pension, as the benefit is governed by statutory rules requiring a clear determination of legal entitlement

In instances of rival claimants or disputed marital status, the employer is legally justified in demanding a succession certificate from a competent court to avoid wrongful disbursement

a claim for arrears by legal heirs is consequential; if the primary right did not accrue to the deceased claimant due to non-fulfillment of procedural requirements, no enforceable right survives for the heirs

The Tribunal observed that the deceased employee created significant ambiguity by declaring Sulochana Devi as his wife throughout his service and only naming Asha Devi in nomination papers post-retirement

the Railway administration's demand for a succession certificate was a reasonable safeguard against multiplicity of claims and legal complications

Since Asha Devi failed to produce the required legal certification during her lifetime—despite being granted ample opportunity—the respondents could not be held liable for "illegality or arbitrariness"

because no primary right to the pension had accrued to Asha Devi, her children could not maintain a claim for arrears as there was no "enforceable right" to inherit

The court found that the applicants failed to establish an undisputed legal right to the relief sought

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly

No order as to costs was made