Omission of a spouse's name from service records cannot justify the denial of family pension.

The applicant is the widow of Ram Kumar, a former Telecom Technician with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), who retired voluntarily on 31.01.2020 and deceased on 10.11.2020

Due to a marital dispute dating back to 2012, the applicant lived separately and was awarded monthly maintenance by the Family Court, Raebareli, which the respondents deducted directly from the husband's salary until his retirement

Following his death, the applicant sought family pension and retiral dues, providing a succession certificate, residence certificate, and Aadhaar details

The respondents denied the claim via orders dated 21.03.2020, 01.04.2020, and 05.10.2024, on the grounds that the deceased employee had not entered the applicant’s name in Form 3 (Details of Family) or the Pension Payment Order (PPO)

1. Whether the absence of a spouse's name in the service records (Form 3) and Pension Payment Order (PPO) is a sufficient legal ground to deny family pension when the marital relationship is otherwise established

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to grant family pension to a legal heir whose status was previously recognized by the employer through the disbursement of court-ordered maintenance

The Tribunal applied the settled legal principle that pension is not a bounty to be disbursed at the employer's discretion but a hard-earned right

It established that a responsibility is cast upon the employer to independently satisfy themselves regarding the eligibility of a family member for family pension, even if that member's name was omitted from official service records

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents could not plead ignorance of the applicant's status as the legal wife.

It noted that the respondents had historically acknowledged the relationship by complying with the Family Court’s order to pay maintenance from the deceased employee’s salary

The court found that since the applicant’s identity and status were known to the department through these prior administrative actions and corroborated by a succession certificate, the technical omission of her name in Form 3 or the PPO by the deceased employee was not a valid justification for denial

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant met the eligibility criteria for the grant of family pension and remaining retiral benefits

It held that the applicant is entitled to the family pension and any outstanding retirement dues of her late husband

The respondents were directed to commence payment of the family pension from the due date and release all remaining retiral dues within three months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded