Legally wedded widow’s family pension cannot be denied based on nomination or deceased employee’s contrary request.

The petitioner was the legally wedded wife of late Shri Devani Nadirbhai Mahamadali, who served as a Line Man in the Electrical Department of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation.

He retired on 30 April 2024 after completing 30 years, 7 months and 16 days of qualifying service.

The marriage subsisted until his death on 27 August 2025, and no decree of divorce had been passed.

The respondent-authority did not process the petitioner’s family pension on the grounds that the deceased had filed an affidavit stating that no retiral dues should be released to her and that his two sons, rather than the petitioner, were named as nominees.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking family pension from the date of her husband’s death, along with arrears and interest.

Whether a legally wedded wife whose marriage continued until the employee’s death is entitled to family pension notwithstanding the deceased employee’s contrary affidavit and nomination of his sons.

Whether nomination in favour of third parties or other family members can defeat the statutory entitlement of the legally wedded widow to family pension.

The Court applied Rule 88(a)(i) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which defines “family” to include the wife of a male Government employee, including where the marriage took place before or after retirement.

Relying on Abedakhatun Y. Malek v. Director of Pension and Provident Funds, 2011 LawSuit (Guj) 1442, the Court held that family pension is governed by statutory provisions and that the decisive requirements are that the claimant be the legally wedded spouse and be alive on the date of the pensioner’s death; desertion or separate residence is irrelevant.

The Court also relied on Jodh Singh v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 306, Smt. Violet Issaac v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 725, and G.L. Bhatia v. Union of India, (1999) 5 SCC 237, for the principles that family pension is a statutory welfare benefit, is not subject to testamentary disposition or ordinary nomination, and cannot be denied to the surviving legally wedded spouse merely because the deceased nominated another person.

The Court found that the petitioner’s marriage with the deceased employee continued to subsist until his death and that no divorce decree had been obtained.

Applying Rule 88(a)(i) and the ratio of Abedakhatun Y. Malek, the Court held that the petitioner’s status as the legally wedded wife was determinative of her entitlement to family pension.

The deceased employee’s affidavit expressing an intention to exclude her and the nomination of the two sons could not override the statutory scheme governing family pension.

The respondent’s counsel fairly conceded that the Division Bench decision applied to the present facts.

The petition was allowed.

The respondent-authorities were directed to fix and release the family pension as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within three months of receiving the order.

Consequential arrears were directed to be paid within a further three months.

The Rule was made absolute.