Family pension claims cannot be rejected solely for absence of the spouse’s name in service records; thorough inquiry is mandatory.

The applicant claimed to be the legally wedded wife of late Sabir Hussain, a retired employee of the respondents’ department.

His first wife, Alia Begum, died on 2 February 1998, and the applicant asserted that she married him on 7 September 1999, after his first wife’s death.

The applicant alleged that the deceased employee informed the department in 2000 and requested that her name be recorded in his service and pension records.

After his death on 20 April 2021, she sought family pension, but the claim was rejected by order dated 12 February 2022 on the ground that her name did not appear as spouse or dependent in the official records.

She relied, inter alia, on children’s marksheets showing her as their mother and the deceased employee as their father.

The respondents disputed receipt of the alleged 2000 intimation and asserted that no reliable proof of marriage had been produced.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for family pension could be rejected solely because her name was not recorded as the deceased employee’s spouse or dependent in the service and pension records.

2. Whether the respondents were required to conduct a proper inquiry and provide the applicant an opportunity to establish her marriage and entitlement before deciding her claim for family pension.

The Tribunal applied the principle that pension is not a bounty but a legal entitlement, and that family pension cannot be denied without properly determining the claimant’s status and entitlement.

It relied on T.K. Vijayakumari v. Union of India, O.A. No. 517 of 2008, decided by the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 3 April 2009, which held that failure of a government servant to record a subsequent marriage during his lifetime does not, by itself, defeat the claimant’s family-pension claim; the department must undertake necessary verification, including under the Office Memorandum dated 4 November 1992, and allow production of other valid evidence where a marriage certificate is unavailable.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that an administrative rejection affecting pensionary rights must be based on proper verification and a fair opportunity of hearing, rather than merely on the absence of an entry in official records.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s asserted marriage occurred after the death of the deceased employee’s first wife and therefore was not, on the pleaded facts, automatically invalid on account of an existing prior marriage.

The alleged 2000 letter, the children’s educational records, and the applicant’s consistent claim constituted material requiring verification rather than summary rejection.

The absence of the applicant’s name from the service book or pension papers was held insufficient by itself to disprove the marriage, particularly where the deceased employee allegedly sought during his lifetime to have her name recorded.

Any discrepancies in the names of the parties also required investigation and verification, not outright dismissal of the claim.

Applying T.K. Vijayakumari, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents had failed to conduct a thorough inquiry or afford the applicant a meaningful opportunity to produce supporting evidence.

The matter was remitted to the competent authority, which was directed to fix a date and inform the applicant so that she could produce facts and evidence supporting her claim.

The respondents were directed to conduct a thorough inquiry and provide her an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The exercise was to be completed within four months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.