ups_00474 — Rejection of family pension claim of a post-retirement spouse without affording opportunity to substantiate the marriage is violative of principles of natural justice

Rejection of family pension claim of a post-retirement spouse without affording opportunity to substantiate the marriage is violative of principles of natural justice — Order directing respondent to reconsider family pension claim for Applicant, allowing Original Application to extent indicated, with specified timeframes for decision and disbursement, if eligible. [... — Facts: The Applicant's husband, late Shri E. Thanga Nadar, was working as Postman and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-1978. The first wife of the Applicant's husband, namely Sudamani Thangam, passed away on 31-1-2014. The marriage between the Applicant and E. Thanga Nadar took place on 7-1-2015 at Sree Kaya Vembuvathi Temple. The Applicant's husband died on 28-2-2017. The Applicant made representations on 16-10-2017 and on 9-11-2017 to the Respondent seeking family pension, which were rejected by proceedings, dated 3-4-2019. Her further representation, dated 11-7-2019 was also rejected by order, dated 25-10-2019. Against the same, she filed O.A. No. 525 of 2020 before the Tribunal, which disposed of the above by directing the Respondent to consider the case of the Applicant for payment of family pension. Without considering the same, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Applicant once again by the impugned order, dated 15-3-2023. Aggrieved, the present OA was filed for quashing of the said order and for a direction to the Respondent to sanction family pension consequent on the death of her husband on 28-2-2017. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal in O.A. No. 525 of 2020, after hearing both parties, categorically held that the Applicant was entitled to the relief sought and directed the Respondent to consider her claim for family pension within a period of three months. However, in purported compliance with the said direction, the Respondent passed the impugned order which was contemptuous in nature, being merely a formal rejection of the claim rendered without due consideration of the specific observations and findings recorded by this Tribunal in its order, dated 1-12-2022, particularly in Paragraphs 6 and 7. It was further submitted that the Applicant's husband himself proposed and initiated the idea of entering into a formal marriage with the Applicant. Accordingly, a formal marriage was solemnized on 7-1-2015 at Shree Kayavembu Ayya Temple, in the presence of family members and well-wishers. Learned Counsel emphasized that the first wife of the deceased pensioner had passed away on 31-1-2014, a fact not disputed by the Respondent. Therefore, the marriage, dated 7-1-2015 was legally valid and free from any subsisting marital impediment. It was also contended that a reading of the impugned order suggests that the Respondent conducted a discreet inquiry behind the back of the Applicant and arrived at an adverse conclusion regarding the validity of the marriage. If the Respondent had any doubt as to the genuineness of the marriage, it was incumbent upon them to afford the Applicant an opportunity to substantiate the same through oral and documentary evidence. The failure to do so amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no legal bar, even under the applicable rules, preventing a retired employee from contracting a marriage after retirement, nor disentitling a legally wedded post retirement spouse from claiming family pension. The Applicant had produced all relevant and supporting documents to establish the marriage; however, the Respondent failed to properly appreciate the same. Learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of the Applicant and relied upon the reply statement filed. It was submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 525 of 2020, dated 1-12-2022, the Respondent duly considered the matter and by a reasoned order, dated 15-3-2023, rightly rejected the Applicant's claim for family pension. Learned Counsel pointed out that in the Applicant's representation, she stated her date of marriage as 13-9-1975, without mentioning the place of marriage, whereas the marriage certificate produced by her reflects the date of marriage as 7-1-2015. This material inconsistency casts serious doubt on the veracity of her claim. It was further submitted that the deceased pensioner did not declare the Applicant as his wife at any point during his service, after retirement, or even after the death of his first wife, Smt. Soodamani. Additionally, upon inquiry conducted by the Mail Overseer regarding the alleged marriage, dated 7-1-2015, it was found that the marriage certificate / receipt had been issued by the concerned Secretary only after April 2019 and not on the alleged date of marriage. The signature appearing on the marriage certificate was not that of the deceased pensioner, and the receipt did not bear a running serial number. In view of these discrepancies, the Respondent rightly concluded that the claim was not genuine and rejected the same in accordance with law.