Family pension is an indefeasible right for the widow of a former Railway employee.

The applicants are the widow (Sheela. S.) and daughter (Shibi. B.S.) of late G. Babu, a retired Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector.

G. Babu took voluntary retirement on 30.09.2016.

The first applicant had previously initiated legal proceedings in Family Court for recovery of gold ornaments, maintenance for the daughter, and marriage expenses.

An ex-parte decree was passed on 25.07.2018 against Babu, directing him to pay Rs. 5,75,000/- for gold ornaments, Rs. 50,000/-, past and future maintenance for the daughter, and Rs. 10 Lakh for marriage expenses, with these amounts being a charge on his property.

The day after the decree, Babu applied to set aside the ex-parte order.

Babu later filed O.A.309/2021 before the Tribunal seeking the release of his gratuity and commuted pension, which were withheld due to the pending family court case.

The Tribunal in O.A.309/2021, on 26.10.2023, directed the release of these amounts, as it was informed that the O.P. was disposed of, without disclosure of the application to set aside the ex-parte order.

Babu passed away on 06.11.2022, before the amounts were released.

On 17.11.2022, a total of Rs. 26,96,742/- (DCRG and commuted value of pension) was disbursed to Babu's bank account.

The respondents claimed they were unaware of Babu's death until 21.11.2022.

The applicants contend that the disbursement was illegal due to Babu's death and their 2/3rd share in the benefits.

They have filed a criminal complaint regarding alleged misappropriation and the respondents have refused to process the first applicant's family pension application, allegedly to coerce them to withdraw their claims.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to grant family pension to the first applicant?

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to a 2/3rd share of the DCRG and commuted value of pension disbursed to Late G. Babu after his death?

3. Whether the respondents' disbursal of DCRG and commuted value of pension to the deceased Babu's bank account after his death constitutes a valid discharge and whether the pendency of the application to set aside the ex-parte order in the Family Court affected the release of benefits?

The Tribunal applied the principle that family pension is an indefeasible right of the widow of a former Railway employee, granted on account of status upon the death of the husband, and does not form part of the deceased's estate.

It relied on the decision in *Jodh Singh v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 306]* which clarified that family pension is not payable during the lifetime of the deceased and cannot be disposed of by testamentary disposition, thus emphasizing its nature as a benefit for the widow becoming entitled on the event of death.

The Tribunal also implicitly referred to Rule 10(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules concerning the withholding of benefits during judicial proceedings, although it found the application to set aside the ex-parte order not to be a 'lis' in this context.

The Tribunal determined that the first applicant, as the widow of Late G. Babu, has an indefeasible right to family pension, regardless of whether her name was included in his service records.

This right accrues immediately upon the death of the husband.

Citing *Jodh Singh v. Union of India*, the Tribunal underscored that family pension is a benefit arising from status, not an inheritance from the deceased's estate.

The respondents' arguments regarding the pending criminal complaint or other claims were deemed irrelevant to the first applicant's right to family pension.

However, concerning the DCRG and commuted value of pension, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the inter-se dispute among Babu's legal heirs due to disputed facts and the existence of ongoing criminal proceedings and other legal actions by the applicants in different forums.

While acknowledging the applicants' claim of a 2/3rd share and the potentially improper withdrawal of funds by the nominee, the Tribunal found that this specific issue concerning the division of the disbursed funds was outside its jurisdiction and better suited for other appropriate authorities.

The Tribunal noted the non-disclosure of the application to set aside the ex-parte order in the Family Court during the prior O.A.309/2021 proceedings, but held that such an application did not constitute a 'lis' under the doctrine of lis pendens.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to release the family pension along with arrears to the first applicant within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Any delay beyond this period will incur an interest of 8% per annum.

The Tribunal explicitly stated that the issue regarding the 2/3rd share of DCRG and commuted value of pension involves disputed questions of fact and inter-se disputes among legal heirs, which is not the proper forum for adjudication, and directed the applicants to agitate this before appropriate authorities.