Legally wedded spouse's right to family pension prevails over nominees as nomination does not override succession laws.

The applicant sought the release of family pension and other retiral dues following the death of his wife, Smt. Pushpa Kumari Puri, on April 2, 2022, who had retired as a TGT in July 2020

The applicant supported his claim with a marriage certificate, a Surviving Member Certificate (SMC) issued by the Revenue Department naming him as the sole survivor, and a Pension Payment Order (PPO) that identified him as the spouse

The Respondents rejected his claim via an order dated 20.01.2024, arguing that the deceased had nominated her brother and sister-in-law for Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and arrears of pension

They further contended that the deceased referred to herself as "Kumari" (unmarried) in service forms and that the applicant should be relegated to a civil court to obtain a succession certificate

1. Whether a nomination made by a deceased employee for pensionary benefits supersedes the statutory claim of a legally wedded spouse

2. Whether the absence of a spouse's name in service records justifies the denial of family pension when marital status is otherwise authenticated by competent authorities

The Tribunal referred to Rule 53 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, regarding the nomination process

The Tribunal relied on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi [AIR 1984 SC 346], which established that a nominee is merely a trustee or agent authorized to receive the amount for a valid discharge of liability and does not become the beneficial owner over legal heirs

It applied Smt. Violet Issac v. Union of India [(1991) SCR (1) 282], which clarified that family pension is a welfare scheme meant for the widow and children; it does not form part of the deceased's estate and therefore cannot be disposed of via a will or nomination in contravention of the rules

The Tribunal reasoned that the objective of a nomination is to simplify the settlement of claims, not to override succession laws or statutory rights of family members

It observed that the deceased's use of "Kumari" or her father’s name in 2016 forms did not legally extinguish her marital status

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue Department had issued a Surviving Member Certificate, the Respondents could not unilaterally ignore it or demand a civil court decree based on mere suspicion

It emphasized that under the Family Pension Scheme, specific persons (spouse/children) are designated by law as beneficiaries; because the employee has no absolute title to the pension (as it is not part of their estate), they cannot nominate third parties like a brother or sister-in-law to receive it in preference to a spouse

It held that the applicant cannot be relegated to a civil court as there is no legal basis to deny family pension solely due to his absence from service records

The Respondents were directed to process and release all funds, including family pension, to the applicant within two months, subject to the verification of the SMC and the submission of an indemnity bond

Failure to comply within the stipulated time would entitle the applicant to interest at the GPF rate