Service record declaration warrants provisional family pension payment despite rival claims and pending succession litigation.

The applicant, Smt. Rita Shankar, sought family pension and settlement dues following the death of her husband, Jaiprakash Shankar, a South Eastern Railway employee, on 23/07/2019.

While the respondents had already granted compassionate appointment to the applicant's daughter, they withheld settlement dues and pension after a third party, Smt. Pinki Shankar (Respondent No. 3), also claimed to be the legally married wife of the deceased.

By a speaking order dated 27/04/2022, the Workshop Personnel Officer directed the applicant to produce a succession certificate.

The applicant challenged this order, asserting her status based on official records.

Meanwhile, Respondent No. 3 filed a succession case (No. 05/2021), which remains sub-judice.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of family pension and settlement dues based on official service records despite a competing claim and a pending succession suit.

2. Whether the demand for a succession certificate by the respondent authority was sustainable when the deceased employee had already made a formal family declaration in favor of the applicant.

The court exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that official service records and family declarations made by an employee during their lifetime serve as primary evidence for determining beneficiaries of terminal benefits.

The court also balanced the administrative requirement for a succession certificate in the face of rival claims with the immediate financial needs of a declared nominee, exercising equitable discretion to grant partial relief pending judicial determination of heirship.

The Tribunal scrutinized the original service book of the deceased employee.

It found that Jaiprakash Shankar had explicitly declared the applicant, Rita Shankar, as his wife for medical facilities and under the family pension scheme via a declaration dated 04/01/2020.

Furthermore, the Assistant Works Manager had certified the applicant as the legal surviving widow.

The Tribunal noted that the rival claimant, Pinki Shankar, was not mentioned in the service book or the employee's family declarations.

While the Tribunal acknowledged the complexity introduced by the pending Succession Case No. 05/2021 filed by Pinki Shankar, it reasoned that the official records provided a strong prima facie case for the applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that a total withholding of benefits was unjustified.

The balance 50% of the family pension and all other retirement dues are to be decided based on the final outcome of the sub-judice Succession Case No. 05/2021.

No orders as to costs were made.