Jammu: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, has ruled that a second wife is not entitled to family pension if the deceased government employee contracted the second marriage without obtaining mandatory prior permission from the competent authority. The Tribunal held that in such scenarios, the first legally wedded wife remains the sole beneficiary of the pensionary benefits.
Judicial Member Rajinder Singh Dogra allowed the plea of the first wife, directing the authorities to release the family pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits in her favor within 12 weeks.
Background of the Case
The matter arose following the death of Late Mohd. Shafi, a Teacher in the School Education Department, who passed away on February 11, 2023, after rendering over 37 years of service. The deceased employee is survived by two wives: the applicant, Smt. Sharifa Begum (first wife), and Respondent No. 5, Smt. Naseem Akhter (second wife).
Upon the employee’s death, the applicant applied for the grant of family pension and other retiral benefits. However, during the scrutiny of the pension papers, the Office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jammu, noted the existence of two surviving spouses. Consequently, the office sought clarification from the Department regarding whether the deceased had obtained prior permission under Rule 22(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, to contract a second marriage.
The Headmaster of Government High School, Shikari, responded via a communication dated August 31, 2024, confirming that the deceased employee had solemnized a second marriage without obtaining the mandatory prior permission from the competent authority. Despite this clarification and the submission of a legal heir certificate, the benefits were not finalized due to the conflicting claims, prompting the applicant to approach the Tribunal.
Contentions of the Parties
The applicant, represented by Advocate Arshad Hussain, contended that she is the first legally wedded wife and was entirely dependent on the deceased during his lifetime. It was submitted that Respondent No. 5, the second wife, is herself a regular government employee drawing a substantial salary and was never dependent upon the deceased employee. The applicant argued that the delay in sanctioning the pension was arbitrary and unjustified.
The respondents, represented by Mr. Sudesh Magotra, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Sumant Sudan, submitted that the Accountant General’s office is bound to authorize pension strictly in accordance with statutory rules. They relied on Note (2) below Rule 22(a) of Schedule XV of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, Volume II, and the Jammu and Kashmir Family Pension-cum-Gratuity Rules, 1964.
The respondents averred that under these provisions, “family pension in favour of a second wife is admissible only if the deceased employee had obtained prior permission from the competent authority for contracting the second marriage after 05.02.1971.” They argued that since no such permission was obtained, the eligibility had to be determined by the Pension Sanctioning Authority.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Observations
The Tribunal examined the legal framework regarding bigamous marriages by government servants. The Bench observed that Rule 22(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, expressly prohibits a government servant from contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse without prior permission of the Government.
Referring to the pension regulations, the Tribunal noted that the rules unequivocally stipulate that where a second marriage has been contracted after February 5, 1971, without prior permission, the second wife does not acquire eligibility for family pension.
The Court observed:
“The rules consciously protect the rights of the legally wedded spouse and do not extend such benefit to a relationship which is in clear violation of service conduct rules. Any other interpretation would amount to legitimizing an act which the service rules expressly prohibit and penalize.”
The Tribunal also addressed the “equitable dimension” of the matter, noting the financial disparity between the claimants. The Court observed that the applicant is a widow with no independent source of income, whereas Respondent No. 5 is a regular government employee.
The Bench remarked:
“Denial of family pension to the applicant in such circumstances would defeat both the letter and spirit of the pension rules and would amount to manifest arbitrariness.”
Emphasizing the duty of administrative authorities, the Tribunal stated:
“Family pension is not a bounty but a statutory right intended to provide immediate succour to the dependent family members of a deceased employee. The prolonged withholding of family pension and gratuity on the pretext of inter se claims, despite clear statutory guidance, cannot be approved.”
Decision
The Tribunal held that Smt. Sharifa Begum, being the first legally wedded wife of Late Mohd. Shafi, is the “sole person entitled to family pension and other consequential retiral benefits arising out of his service.” The Court ruled that Respondent No. 5, having no legal entitlement under the applicable rules, cannot be treated as a beneficiary for the purpose of family pension.
The Original Application was allowed with a direction to the respondents to finalize and sanction the family pension, gratuity, and all other admissible retiral benefits in favor of the applicant strictly in accordance with the rules within a period of 12 weeks. The Tribunal further directed that any arrears found due should also be released within the said period.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sharifa Begum vs. U.T of J&K and Others
- Case Number: O.A. No. 549/2025
