Family pension requires proof of statutory eligibility, relationship, and dependency; nomination alone is insufficient.

The applicant, Km. Rehana Begum, claimed to be the unmarried daughter of Late Mohammad Yameen, a retired employee of the Ordnance Clothing Factory, Shahjahanpur, who died on 3 July 1999 while receiving pension from the Ministry of Defence. She sought family pension from the date of his death under Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. She submitted representations from 2015 onwards and a legal notice in 2022, alleging that the respondents had failed to process her claim

The respondents disputed her entitlement, relying on the service nomination/family details in which the daughter’s name was recorded as “Rihana”, with date of birth 18 June 1953, whereas the applicant claimed to be “Rehana Begum”, born on 16 June 1958. They also contended that she had failed to furnish several documents, including proof of marital status, an income certificate, her father’s death and fund records, and a bank certificate showing the period up to which pension had been paid to him

The applicant disputed the correctness of the official records and alleged discrepancies and cutting in the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act. The Original Application was filed in 2023.

1. Whether the applicant established that she was the daughter and an eligible unmarried/dependent family member of Late Mohammad Yameen so as to claim family pension under Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to family pension from 3 July 1999 despite the discrepancy between her particulars and the official service records and her failure to substantiate the claim with reliable documentary evidence?

3. Whether the claim was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, having been raised for the first time in 2015 and pursued before the Tribunal in 2023?

Family pension is a statutory and welfare benefit governed by the applicable Pension Rules, and it does not form part of the deceased employee’s estate. In Jodh Singh v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 306, the Supreme Court held that family pension arises upon satisfaction of the prescribed status and is not subject to testamentary disposition

In Smt. Violet Issaac v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 725, the Supreme Court held that family pension is payable only to persons designated as eligible under the governing Rules and cannot be conferred merely by nomination

Under Rule 54(6)(iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, an unmarried daughter may receive family pension until marriage or remarriage or until she begins earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier

Accordingly, an applicant must establish both her relationship with the deceased employee and compliance with the applicable eligibility and dependency requirements

The Tribunal held that the nomination form was not, by itself, determinative because family pension is governed by the statutory Rules rather than nomination

However, the applicant still had to establish through cogent evidence that she was the daughter recorded in the official service and pension records and that she satisfied the conditions of eligibility under Rule 54(6). The official records described a daughter named “Rihana”, born on 18 June 1953, while the applicant claimed to be “Rehana Begum”, born on 16 June 1958. Her allegations regarding discrepancies and cutting did not amount to sufficient proof displacing the official records

She also failed to satisfactorily provide the documents sought by the respondents and did not establish her dependency upon the deceased as on 3 July 1999

In addition, the substantial delay between the employee’s death in 1999, the applicant’s first representation in 2015, and the filing of the Original Application in 2023 reinforced the conclusion that the claim was barred by delay and laches

The discrepancy in the official records, failure to remove the documentary deficiencies, absence of proof of dependency, and prolonged delay disentitled her to family pension from 3 July 1999

The Original Application was dismissed as meritless and barred by delay and laches, with no order as to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, were also disposed of