Family Pension Claims: Succession Certificate Required When Spouses Dispute.

The applicant, Smt. Geeta Mahoriya, sought family pension as the widow of the deceased employee, Ramesh Mahoriya.

Ramesh Mahoriya retired on March 31, 2017, and was receiving pension until his death on August 30, 2023.

The applicant presented a registered will dated March 26, 2023, executed in her favour (Annexure A/5) and a registered marriage certificate dated August 17, 2022, with the deceased employee (Annexure A/7).

She claimed to be the second wife of the deceased, married after his divorce from his first wife.

Her name was not mentioned in the service book as a nominee.

The respondents stated that the service records listed Mrs. Rajni Bai as the deceased employee's wife, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of divorce between the deceased and Mrs. Rajni Bai.

Due to conflicting claims for family pension from both Mrs. Rajni Bai and the applicant, the respondents informed both parties to obtain a succession certificate from the competent court.

Whether the applicant, Smt. Geeta Mahoriya, is entitled to family pension as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, Ramesh Mahoriya, despite her name not being in the service book as a nominee.

Whether the respondents were justified in asking the applicant to produce a succession certificate to decide the claim for family pension given the dispute between the applicant and the first wife.

The court primarily relied on Rule 75 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, read with the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, which mandates that a railway servant must nominate one or more family members for family pension at retirement or submit a fresh nomination after retirement to supersede any earlier nomination.

The specific legal requirement for "legally wedded wife" qualification for family pension, particularly concerning prior marriages, implicitly invokes principles from the Hindu Marriage Act regarding the validity of a subsequent marriage without a preceding divorce.

The court considered the applicant's claim based on her marriage certificate and the deceased employee's will, but noted the absence of her name as a nominee in the service book.

The respondents contended that the lack of evidence for divorce between the deceased and his first wife, Mrs. Rajni Bai, along with Mrs. Rajni Bai's own claim for family pension, made the applicant's status as a legally wedded wife for pension purposes disputable.

The court highlighted that Rule 75 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules requires the deceased employee to have nominated the applicant for family pension, which was not done.

Given the conflicting claims and the absence of a revised nomination, the court found the respondents' decision to require a succession certificate justified to establish the rightful claimant.

The court directed the applicant to produce a succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction to justify her claim as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee for consideration of her case for family pension.

There was no order as to costs.