Widow’s Family Pension Cannot Be Held Up For In-Laws’ NOC, CAT Orders Release Within 60 Days Subject To Required Documents

The applicant, the widow of a Senior Research Assistant who died in service on 2 May 2024, sought family pension, death gratuity and other terminal benefits.

The respondents did not dispute her status as his wife but withheld processing of her claims, citing the deceased’s nomination of his mother for DCRG and the absence of the parents’ NOC.

The deceased and the applicant had a minor child; the Tribunal also noted apparent disputes between the applicant and her in-laws.

The applicant challenged the insistence on an NOC and sought payment of the benefits.

The Tribunal held that Rule 50(6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 governed the family-pension claim and treated the widow’s entitlement as a statutory right.

It relied on Smt. Violet Issaac v. Union of India, which establishes that family pension is not part of the deceased’s estate and is payable to the person designated under the rules, rather than under a nomination.

It also relied on Jodh Singh v. Union of India, which explains that a pension arising from widowhood is a status-based entitlement and cannot be disposed of as part of the deceased’s estate.

For DCRG and other terminal benefits, the Tribunal applied the principle that devolution is governed by the deceased’s personal law; it referred to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and treated the nominee as a trustee who cannot appropriate the benefits to the exclusion of other legal heirs.

The applicant’s status as the deceased’s widow was undisputed, and no one alleged that she had remarried.

Applying Rule 50(6), the Tribunal concluded that the parents’ objection was irrelevant to her family-pension claim: the entitlement arose from her status under the rules, not from the deceased’s estate or his mother’s nomination.

The absence of an NOC therefore could not lawfully prevent processing or payment of family pension.

By contrast, DCRG and other terminal benefits formed part of the deceased’s estate and were subject to succession law.

The nomination in favour of the mother did not entitle her to retain those benefits exclusively; release was to be made on production of documents based on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

It directed that DCRG and other terminal benefits be released subject to production of the documents required under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The Original Application was disposed of with no order as to costs.