ups_00488 — Wife of a deceased employee of Central Government is entitled for family pension even if she is cohabitating with some other person, especially when the deceased employee is also cohabitating with her even after knowing her illicit relation with another

Wife of a deceased employee of Central Government is entitled for family pension even if she is cohabitating with some other person, especially when the deceased employee is also cohabitating with her even after knowing her illicit relation with another — This chunk discusses the decision made by a tribunal in a case where a woman was seeking family pension after the death of her husband, who was a government employee. The chunk highlights the tribuna... — Facts: This is a short case for grant of family pension to the Applicant in which case only the relevant points are to be highlighted. The Applicant initially applied for Family Pension to DRM, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar which was not denied. Hence she filed O.A. No. 787 of 2008 before the Tribunal which gave a direction, dated 11-8-2008 to the Respondents therein to decide her request as per law. The representation was rejected. Hence the present OA is filed. It is stated that the deceased Railway servant did not mention the name of the Applicant for family pension and nominated two other persons for family pension. After 16 years of his retirement, the ex-employee requested for including the name of the Applicant for family pension. By Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur, the request was not found fit for reasons analyzed by him. Against that order, this OA is filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that it has "to decide under the circumstances noted by the Tribunal whether the Applicant is entitled for family pension taking into account the order passed by Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur for maintenance case in the year 1979." The Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur rejected her claim for family pension. It has been provided in the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 that "where a female railway servant or male railway servant dies leaving behind a judicially separated husband or widow and no child or children, the family pension in respect of the deceased shall be payable to the person surviving.

Provided that where in case the judicial separation is granted on the ground of adultery and the death of the Railway servant takes place during the period of such judicial separation, the family pension is not payable to the person surviving, if such persons surviving was held guilty of committing adultery." On analysis of the events of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no judicial separation between the Applicant and the deceased Railway employee. Further, the deceased Railway employee, husband of the Applicant had also moved an application during his lifetime on October, 18th 2001 that they are living as wife and husband earlier and at present also. A joint photo to this effect was also produced. Under these circumstances, in view of this provision, Applicant cannot be said to be disqualified from receiving the family pension as wife of the deceased employee. In Smt. Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava and another [ AIR 1967 SC 581 ], it was stated that "whereas in this case a judicial separation is claimed on the ground of Section 10 (1) (f), fact that the husband cohabited with the wife even after the knowledge that she had been guilty of cohabiting with another person would be, in our opinion, sufficient to constitute condonation, particularly as in this case, first respondents knew of the alleged adultery in May / June 1958 and still continued to cohabit with the Appellant thereafter up to October, 1958." In the case of Gulab Jagdusa Kakwane v. Kamal Gulab Kakwane [ 1983-BLR-86-662 ] of Bombay High Court the dispute was that, whether under Section 25 (1) of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955, wife against whom a decree of divorce has been passed on ground of adultery can claim maintenance against her husband, the High Court decided that "..... we are, therefore of the view that this was a fit case in which discretion to award maintenance ought to have been used in favour of his wife." After analyzing based on above judgment, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is an established fact from the overwhelming evidence that the deceased employee and Applicant were the husband and wife.