MAROOFA begum vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 29 October 2026

1. Maroofa Begum, age 46 years,

W/o Late Mohd. Zubair,

R/o A/P Nardani, Bantalab, Jammu – 181122. …..Applicant (Through Advocate: None) VERSUS

1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Home Secretary/Commissioner, New Secretariat, Jammu - 180001

2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Gulshan Ground, Jammu 180004.

3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramban 182144

4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ramban-182144,

5. Accountant General, Civil Secretariat, Jammu 180001.

6. Shazia Parveen, D/o Mohd. Shadeeq R/o Village Laprote, Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri - 185131. .....Respondents (Through Advocate: Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG for resp. 1 to 4 Mr. Sumant Sudan for respondent no. 05 Mr. Pankaj Katal for respondent no. 06)

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 2 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

O R D E R (Final) Sh. Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member This is an Original Application filed by the applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Direct the respondents to consider and finalize the cases of the applicant under Pension Scheme and grant them all service benefits under Pension Scheme by processing their cases for pension & other service /benefits under the same; ii. Award costs of litigation to the applicants; Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the applicants.”

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 07.10.2026, none appeared on behalf of the applicant to advance arguments. The matter was, therefore, considered on its merits on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record.

3. The applicant seeks directions to the official respondents to process and release family pension and other admissible service benefits consequent upon the death of late Mohd. Zabir, who was serving as a Follower in the Police Department, District Police Lines, Ramban, and died in harness on 18.09.2024. She claims to have married the deceased on 09.11.1996 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs and asserts that the marriage subsisted until his death. Relying upon the Nikah Nama and other documents, she maintains that she is entitled to the pensionary

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

benefits. She further alleges that, despite repeated representations and issuance of a legal notice, the departmental authorities failed to process her claim. She has also pleaded financial hardship and stated that she had no knowledge of any subsequent marriage contracted by the deceased.

4. Respondents No. 1 to 4 admit the employment and death of late Mohd. Zabir but contend that the applicant failed to furnish the requisite documents for processing her claim. They further state that the departmental record does not establish her status as the legally wedded wife of the deceased, whereas respondent No. 6 has produced a ration card, dependent certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thanamandi, and legal-heirs certificate.

5. Respondent No. 5, the Accountant General, has stated that the family pension case was never received in its office from respondents No. 1 to 4. It has referred to its communication dated 26.12.2024 and reminders dated 16.05.2025 and 05.06.2025, requesting information regarding the action taken by the concerned departmental authority. Respondent No. 5 has accordingly submitted that the claim can be examined in accordance with the applicable rules upon receipt of the requisite case.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

6. Respondent No. 6, Shazia Parveen, has contested the applicant’s claim and specifically pleaded that the applicant’s marriage with late Mohd. Zabir was dissolved by a divorce deed dated 29.03.2010. She alleges that the applicant subsequently contracted other marriages and has relied upon proceedings relating to recovery of deferred dower instituted against the deceased, the decree and execution proceedings arising therefrom, and a separate declaration suit titled Maroofa Begum v. Shazia Parveen and Others. Respondent No. 6 has also disputed the authenticity of a marriage certificate allegedly relied upon by the applicant to claim remarriage with the deceased in 2014. She asserts that she married late Mohd. Zabir on 12.10.2010 and that three children were born from their relationship. In support of her claim, she relies upon the marriage certificate and other documents concerning the children and her relationship with the deceased.

7. In view of the rival pleadings, the principal question requiring consideration is whether the applicant has established her entitlement to the direction sought for release of family pension and other service benefits in her favour, notwithstanding the serious dispute concerning her marital status and the competing claim of respondent No. 6.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

8. The applicant’s claim rests upon her assertion that her marriage with late Mohd. Zabir continued until his death. Respondent No. 6, however, relies upon an alleged divorce deed dated 29.03.2010 and subsequent proceedings to dispute the subsistence of that marriage. The Tribunal is conscious that neither the alleged divorce nor the applicant’s continued marital status can be conclusively determined merely on the basis of rival assertions in the pleadings. The legal effect of the alleged divorce deed and the proceedings relating to deferred dower would require examination of the relevant authenticated records and applicable law. The dates and particulars of the civil court proceedings referred to by respondent No. 6 must also be verified before any conclusive reliance can be placed upon them.

9. The declaration suit referred to by respondent No. 6 also appears to involve a dispute concerning the applicant’s marital status and entitlement to a share in the service benefits. Its precise pleadings, present status and any orders passed therein would have to be ascertained from the record of the competent court. The pendency of such proceedings does not, by itself, establish that the applicant’s claim is false or that respondent No. 6 is conclusively entitled to family pension. Equally, the allegation that the applicant’s marriage certificate is forged cannot be treated as proved merely because it has been raised in the reply.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

No final finding concerning the validity of the alleged divorce, the authenticity of the disputed documents, or the matrimonial status of either claimant is warranted on the material presently available.

10. The documents relied upon by respondent No. 6, including the ration card, dependent certificate, legal-heirs certificate and marriage certificate, are relevant to the consideration of the competing claims. However, such documents cannot, merely by their existence, be treated as conclusive proof of entitlement to family pension. The claim must be examined in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the authenticated service record of the deceased employee.

11. The applicant has relied upon Rule 22(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Family Pension-cum- Gratuity Rules, 1964, concerning subsequent marriage and eligibility for family pension. The applicability and effect of these provisions depend upon the relevant facts, including the subsistence or dissolution of the earlier marriage, the circumstances of the alleged subsequent marriage, and whether any permission required under the applicable rules was obtained. These matters cannot be conclusively determined merely from the

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

competing pleadings. Equally, no declaration can be made at this stage that respondent No. 6 is the sole eligible beneficiary.

12. As regards the alleged administrative inaction, respondent No. 5 has categorically stated that the pension case was not received in its office. Consequently, it had no occasion to scrutinize the claim or determine eligibility under the applicable rules. The communications and reminders referred to by respondent No. 5 indicate that the matter had been taken up with the concerned departmental authority. The material available does not, by itself, establish that the entire delay was attributable to the applicant or that the official respondents deliberately withheld the claim for extraneous considerations. Nor is there sufficient material to record a finding of mala fides against any individual official.

13. The Tribunal recognizes the welfare objective of family pension and the hardship that may arise from delay in settlement of such benefits. However, financial hardship cannot, by itself, establish eligibility where the claimant’s legal status remains disputed. The entitlement must be determined under the applicable rules and cannot be made dependent upon a private compromise between rival claimants.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

14. Upon a cumulative consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not established an unconditional entitlement to the specific relief sought. The earlier marriage relied upon by her, the alleged divorce deed, the proceedings relating to deferred dower, the competing marriage claim of respondent No. 6 and the documents produced by the rival claimants raise material questions which remain unresolved. Further, the Accountant General has not received the pension case for scrutiny. In these circumstances, a direction for immediate release of family pension and other service benefits in favour of the applicant cannot be granted.

15. It is clarified that the dismissal of the present Original Application shall not be construed as a declaration that the alleged divorce deed is valid, that the applicant’s marriage necessarily stood dissolved before the death of late Mohd. Zabir, or that respondent No. 6 is conclusively entitled to family pension. The rival claims remain subject to the applicable rules and determination by the competent authority on the basis of authenticated records and any binding adjudication by a competent court. The findings recorded herein shall not prejudice proceedings before a competent forum concerning the disputed matrimonial status or documents.

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 61/444/ 2025

16. For the foregoing reasons, the Original Application is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand disposed of accordingly.

(DIWAKAR SINGH)

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) Judicial Member Administrative Member RS Pathania Steno-D

RAJAT SINGH PATHANIA