Remarriage permanently terminates a widow's family pension entitlement, notwithstanding subsequent dissolution or annulment of the second marriage.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Accounts Officer, was the widow of Late Shri S.S. Jadon, who died in service on May 27, 1988.

Consequently, she was granted a family pension effective from May 28, 1988.

On May 8, 1995, the applicant remarried.

Following this remarriage, her family pension was discontinued by the respondents.

The second marriage was subsequently annulled by a decree of a competent court on August 30, 2000.

After the annulment and her own retirement from government service, the applicant sought the restoration of the family pension related to her first husband, submitting representations in 2014, 2015, and 2018, all of which were rejected.

The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) on February 3, 2019, seeking restoration of the family pension effective from the date her second marriage was declared void.

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the delay of over 23 years from the initial cause of action?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the restoration of family pension from her deceased first husband following the annulment of her second marriage under the relevant Pension Rules?

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year of the cause of action.

The Tribunal's duty to verify limitation as established in D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India Ors. (2018).

Rule 54(6) and Rule 54(8) of the Family Pension Rules, 1964 (CCS Pension Rules), which stipulate that family pension is payable to a widow only until her death or remarriage, whichever occurs earlier.

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation, noting that the cause of action arose in 1995 when the family pension was stopped due to remarriage.

The applicant approached the Tribunal in 2019, after a lapse of 23 years, without providing a sufficient explanation for the delay; thus, the OA was deemed barred by Section 21 of the Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal analyzed Rule 54(8) of the Pension Rules, concluding that the right to family pension is extinguished upon remarriage.

The court reasoned that once the applicant remarried, she ceased to be the "widow" of the deceased employee for the purposes of the rules.

The subsequent annulment of the second marriage did not revive the statutory right to claim pension from the first husband.

The court also highlighted that the applicant was already receiving her own pension as a retired Group ‘B’ officer, further weakening her claim for restoration of the previous benefit.

The court answered the first issue in the affirmative, stating the applicant failed to agitate the matter in a timely manner.

On the second issue, the court held that under the Family Pension Rules, 1964, remarriage serves as a terminal event for the receipt of family pension, and subsequent legal dissolution of the second marriage does not restore the applicant's status as a widow entitled to pension from the first husband.

No costs were awarded.