The Allahabad High Court has held that a legally wedded wife cannot be denied statutory family pension merely because her name was omitted from the pension nomination forms submitted by her deceased husband. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan quashed the rejection order dated September 21, 2020, issued by the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur, and directed that family pension be released in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Urmila Singh.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Urmila Singh, had filed Writ-A No. 5545 of 2021 challenging the order rejecting her claim for family pension. Her husband, late Prabhu Narayan Singh, was an Assistant Teacher in a Basic School under the Basic Shiksha Parishad. He retired on March 31, 2016, and was receiving pension until his death on November 29, 2019.
After his death, the petitioner applied for family pension. However, her claim was rejected on the ground that her name was not included in the pension application submitted by her husband. The authorities also pointed out that her photograph was not affixed in Part-III of the pension documents, and that the name of her elder son, Atul Kumar Singh, was mentioned as nominee.
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner, represented by advocates Jitendra Prasad, Niraj Kumar Singh, and Rajesh Kumar Singh, contended that:
- She is the legally wedded wife of late Prabhu Narayan Singh, which is certified by the Gram Pradhan and supported by a judgment dated August 20, 2015, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Application No. 404 of 2014, Urmila Singh v. Prabhu Narayan Singh.
- She had been granted maintenance of ₹8,000 per month under Section 125 CrPC, which further established her marital status.
- The son, Atul Kumar Singh, was 34 years old at the time of the government servant’s death and therefore ineligible to receive family pension under the applicable rules.
- Despite the omission of her name in the pension papers, the authorities should have verified her status and processed her claim accordingly.
Respondents’ Stand
Counsel for the State and Basic Education Department argued that:
- The deceased government servant did not name the petitioner in the pension application.
- Since Atul Kumar Singh was nominated in the application, the petitioner’s claim was invalid.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Civil Services Regulations and the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. Referring to Rule 3(3), the Court noted that “family” includes the wife in the case of a male officer. Rule 6 mandates that nominations must be made in favour of family members only.
Justice Chauhan observed:
“It is not disputed that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant. The same is evident from the certificate issued by the concerned Gram Pradhan and the judgement dated 20.08.2015… and the same is not disputed.”
The Court highlighted that under Rule 7(4), the eldest surviving widow is entitled to receive family pension unless she is ineligible. The elder son, being 34 years old at the time of death, did not qualify under the rules, and the wife was the rightful claimant.
Importantly, the Court referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sathikumari Amma, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 539, which held:
“Family pension is not a part of the employee’s estate and cannot be revoked via any declaration or nomination by the deceased.”
Affirming the statutory character of family pension, the Court ruled:
“Family pension is a statutory entitlement of the legally wedded spouse and cannot be revoked or excluded by any declaration, nomination or action of the deceased employee.”
Decision
Quashing the rejection order dated September 21, 2020, the Court held:
“The petitioner is entitled for family pension. Thus, the impugned order is quashed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to release family pension in favour of the petitioner, forthwith.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Urmila Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
- Case No.: Writ – A No. 5545 of 2021
- Bench: Justice Manju Rani Chauhan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Jitendra Prasad, Niraj Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Jay Ram Pandey, Sunil Kumar Dubey
