Statutory family benefits accrue by legal status and cannot be denied through an employee’s discretionary nomination or exclusion.

The applicant is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No. 4, a former Head Clerk in the East Central Railway

Following matrimonial disputes and maintenance proceedings under Sections 125 and 127 of the Cr.P.C., Respondent No. 4 took voluntary retirement (VRS) on October 31, 2021

At the time of retirement, Respondent No. 4 submitted an affidavit to the official respondents specifically excluding the applicant and their two children from his service records, nominations, pensionary benefits, and medical facilities

The applicant sought a mandamus to include her name in the service records and to withhold the respondent's retirement dues

The official respondents contended that retirement dues are paid only to the employee during his lifetime and that he had not nominated his wife or children

1. Whether a retired employee can legally exclude a wedded spouse and legitimate children from service records and statutory family benefits through an affidavit or nomination

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a portion of the pension or retirement benefits while the retired employee is still alive

The court determined that the facilities and benefits available to family members flow from their legal status under statutory rules and not from the personal discretion or "wish" of the employee

Statutory rights of a spouse arise by virtue of law and status, and a nomination does not override these legal entitlements

While the employee is alive, the pension is payable to the employee only, and no direction for apportionment can be issued during his lifetime

The Tribunal observed that since the divorce petition filed by Respondent No. 4 was withdrawn, the applicant remains his legally wedded wife

The court reasoned that an employee cannot direct the department to deny statutory benefits to lawful family members by filing a contrary affidavit or nomination

Such acts have no legal effect because the department is bound to act in accordance with applicable service rules regardless of the employee's intention

However, the court found that as Respondent No. 4 is alive and receiving a month-to-month pension, and since the applicant is already receiving maintenance via the Family Court, the department cannot be directed to share or apportion the husband's pension with the wife during his lifetime

Nonetheless, the applicant and her children cannot be denied other facilities (such as medical or consequential benefits) that accrue to family members of a retired employee

It declined the prayer to apportion the pension during the husband's lifetime but directed the competent authority to consider and extend all such facilities and benefits permissible under the rules to the applicant and her children as family members of a retired employee

This exercise was ordered to be completed within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order

No costs were awarded