Pension authorities must decide disputed spouse entries in PPOs through reasoned orders after hearing affected parties.

The applicant, a retired Master Craftsman of the Ordnance Factory, sought to have Smt. Sajda Begum recorded as his wife in his Pension Payment Order (PPO).

The pension records were inconsistent: subsequent family details identified Sajda Begum, while a fund slip identified Smt. Safiyan Begum.

The respondents also cited the applicant’s earlier marriage to private respondent No. 4, Smt. Roshan Ara, and related proceedings, and sought clarification and supporting documents before processing the request.

The applicant’s representation dated 22 January 2024 requested correction of the pension records; the Tribunal also referred to a reminder dated 14 November 2024.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s request to record Smt. Sajda Begum as his wife in the PPO, notwithstanding the discrepancies in the records.

Whether that decision should be made after hearing private respondent No. 4 and considering the relevant records and documents.

The Tribunal did not identify or apply a specific statutory provision, pension rule, or precedent in deciding the application.

Although the respondents referred to applicable pension rules concerning family-pension entitlement where a divorced first wife, children, and a subsequent wife are involved, the Tribunal did not interpret those rules or determine entitlement on the merits.

It instead directed the respondents to decide the representation “in accordance with law,” after giving private respondent No. 4 notice and an opportunity to be heard and considering the relevant records and documents.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting spouse details in the pension records and the respondents’ stated need for clarification and verification.

Rather than determine whether Sajda Begum was entitled to be recorded in the PPO, it left that question to the competent authorities.

To ensure the claim was considered on a complete record, it required the authorities to hear Roshan Ara and consider the parties’ relevant documents before issuing a reasoned decision.

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 22 January 2024, together with the reminder dated 14 November 2024, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The decision must follow notice and an opportunity of hearing for private respondent No. 4, be reasoned and speaking, and be communicated to both the applicant and private respondent No. 4.

No order as to costs; all associated miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.