Family pension and terminal benefits governed by statutory rules, not inter se family disputes.

The applicant, Parkash Kour, is the aged mother of the deceased employee, Gurpreet Singh, who died on September 24, 2020, in a vehicular accident while actively serving as a Helper in the Soil & Water Conservation Department

The deceased was issueless, and the applicant claims dependency on his earnings

Respondent No. 4, Gurmeet Kour, is the widow of the deceased employee

The applicant sought a share in the death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension of her deceased son, alleging that Respondent No. 4 had already received substantial financial benefits, including approximately ₹17 lakhs in insurance claims, and was attempting to obtain all other retiral benefits, thereby depriving the applicant of her rightful share

The applicant obtained RTI information indicating that death gratuity, leave encashment, and family pension had been sanctioned and released in favor of Respondent No. 4

The respondents, the official authorities, contended that family pension and terminal benefits were released strictly according to applicable rules in favor of legally recognized dependents, relying on dependency and legal heir certificates issued by revenue authorities

They also stated that Respondent No. 4 was granted compassionate appointment under SRO-43 of 1994, further establishing her status as a recognized dependent

The official respondents maintained that no illegality or arbitrariness occurred and that the dispute primarily concerned an inter se family matter regarding the distribution of benefits

Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate an inter se dispute between family members of a deceased employee regarding the distribution of death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension

Whether the official respondents acted in accordance with applicable rules and laws by releasing the entire family pension and terminal benefits to the deceased employee's widow (Respondent No. 4) when the deceased's mother (Applicant) claimed dependency and a share in such benefits

The Tribunal applied the principles governing the jurisdictional scope of the Administrative Tribunals Act, stating that it adjudicates disputes related to recruitment and service conditions but not inter se family disputes concerning inheritance or succession

It also relied on existing pension law that sets a clear order of preference for family pension beneficiaries, primarily recognizing the widow as the first statutory recipient

The Tribunal highlighted that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions regarding pension entitlement

The Tribunal reasoned that the core dispute was not one between an employee and employer concerning service rights, but rather an inter se dispute among family members regarding the distribution of monetary benefits

It clarified that determining competing inheritance or succession claims falls squarely within the jurisdiction of civil courts, not the service jurisdiction of the Tribunal

The Tribunal underscored that family pension is governed by statutory rules with a defined order of preference, making the widow (Respondent No. 4) the primary beneficiary, and thus the department had no discretion to apportion it otherwise

The assertion regarding Respondent No. 4's receipt of insurance proceeds was deemed irrelevant, as insurance claims operate independently of pensionary entitlements

The Tribunal found no violation of statutory rules or administrative arbitrariness by the official respondents, as payments were processed by competent authorities in accordance with statutory procedures and based on certificates issued by revenue authorities

While acknowledging the applicant's advanced age and claimed dependency, the Tribunal concluded that equitable considerations could not override the clear statutory provisions

It concluded that the official respondents' action in releasing the pensionary and terminal benefits to Respondent No. 4 was strictly in accordance with applicable rules and did not warrant interference

Consequently, the Transfer Application was dismissed

However, the Tribunal observed that the dismissal would not preclude the applicant from seeking appropriate remedy before a competent civil court for adjudication of claims relating to succession or a share in the deceased employee's estate