Amrita Sharma vs BSNL on 22 October 2026

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to family pension, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(a) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to restore full family pension to the applicant as earlier.

(b) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay arrears of 50% family pension to the applicant from the month the same was deducted i.e. w.e.f. month July, 2024 along with interest @ 12 % per annual.

(c) The Hon’ble Court Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to stop paying 50% family pension to the opposite party no. 5 forthwith.

(d) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to consider and decide the presentation of the applicant dated 14.02.2025 in accordance with law.

(e) Any other suitable order or direction may also be passed in favour of the applicant which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is the second wife of Ram Vilas Vishwakarma who retired from the post of Divisional Engineer under the respondents on 31.08.2019 and breathed his last on 26.05.2021. The first wife of the deceased employee is survived by four children, including respondent no. 5. After the death of Ram Vilas Vishwakarma, the applicant was in receipt of family pension. However, the respondents divided the family pension equally between the applicant and the respondent no. 5 in the year 2024 against which the applicant represented to respondent no. 2 on 02.09.2024, 17.09.2024 and 14.02.2025. Not having elicited a positive response, the applicant approached Hon’ble High Court in Writ – A No. 4525 of 2025 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 25.04.2025 with the liberty to approach this Tribunal. Hence, this OA.

3. The applicant contends that her family pension has been reduced by half and the other half of the family pension has been given to respondent no. 5 by respondents no. 1 to 4 behind her back on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate of handicap. Her other contention is that in Civil Suit No. 2264/2021, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow granted decree on 12.03.2022 in terms of the compromise dated 21.02.2022 between her and the legal heirs of the deceased employee’s first wife in which it was provided that she would continue to get the family pension and other parties shall have no legal claim on it. 4.1 Respondents no. 1 and 3 state that through office memorandum (OM) dated 19.09.2024 issued by the Ministry of Communication, it has been clarified that succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1952 can be granted only in respect of debts or securities to which the deceased employee was entitled and that the gratuity and the family pension are neither debt nor security of the deceased employee or the pensioner and payment of gratuity and family pension are governed as per the statutory rules, i.e., the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (Pension Rules, hereafter). They further state that the Form-3 filled in by the deceased employee on 16.08.2019 mentioned respondent no. 5 as his disabled son and that 50% of family pension has been authorized to respondent no. 5 as per rule 50(8)(c) of the Pension Rules. 4.2 Similar averments have been made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 4 who additionally state that family pension to handicapped child is governed by rule 50(8)(e), 50(9)(h) and 50(11)(c) of the Pension Rules; they also aver that the disability certificate in respect of respondent no. 5 was verified by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow vide letter dated 19.07.2023. 4.3 Respondent no. 5 contends that he is the son of the deceased employee and that he is 55% physically disabled as certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow. He states that he approached the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 66 of 2023 for grant of family pension which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 directing the respondents to decide his pending representation. He avers that respondent no. 3 passed order dated 12.08.2024 granting 50% family pension to him, but the payment of family pension to him was stopped subsequently by respondent no. 2

vide order dated 05.10.2024 on the applicant’s representation dated 02.09.2024 against which he approached Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal again in OA No. 1449/2024. 4.5 In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has attached the judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed in OA No. 1449 of 2024 by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal.

5. Heard the parties. 6.1 It is noted that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 (Pension Rules) have been notified on 20.12.2021 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution. 6.2 Rule 50 of the Pension Rules governs family pension. Clause (e) of sub-rule (8) of rule 50 reads as follows: “(e) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow without any child eligible for family pension but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the child or children who fulfil the eligibility conditions mentioned in sub-rule (9) shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner and on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to other child or children otherwise eligible in accordance with sub-rule (9), in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child: Provided that if the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by the widow with child or children eligible for family pension, on the share of family pension payable to the widow ceasing to be payable, such share shall be payable to her child or children in accordance with clause

(c) and sub-rule (9)..” (emphasis supplied) Thus the children left behind by the deceased Government servant or pensioner from another wife who is not alive would also be eligible for family pension if they fulfil eligibility conditions mentioned in sub-rule (9).

6.3 The claim of respondent no. 5 to family pension is referable to clause (h) of sub-rule (9) of rule 50 of the Pension Rules quoted below: “(h) Where a deceased Government servant or pensioner is not survived by a son or daughter below the age of twenty-five years and eligible for family pension or where such son or daughter has died or has ceased to be eligible for family pension, the family pension shall be payable for life to a son or daughter who is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or is physically disabled or suffering from any other disability referred to in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) the disability existed before the death of the Government servant or pensioner and his or her spouse; ….

(v) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the appointing authority shall satisfy that the disability is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from,- (A) an authority competent to issue disability certificate in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016), the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 and the guidelines and notifications issued by the Central Government or a State Government or a Union territory administration; or (B) a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Superintendent or a Principal or a Director or Head of the Institution or his nominee as Chairman and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a Specialist in the particular area of disability, setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child.” (emphasis supplied) Thus a disabled son or daughter of deceased Government servant who is unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years is eligible for family pension provided that the appointing authority is satisfied through the procedure prescribed in sub-clauses (v) (A) or (v) (B) of clause (h) that such son or daughter is unable to earn livelihood due to such disability. 6.4 It is evident from the above that the Pension Rules provide for grant of family pension to disabled son or daughter of the deceased Government servant from another wife who is not alive. Accordingly, the

respondent no. 5, who is the son of the deceased Government servant from the first wife, can lay claim to family pension on ground of disability. In view of the specific provision in the statutory rules enabling consideration of grant of family pension to the son of the deceased Government servant from the first wife on ground of disability, any agreement entered by the applicant and respondent no. 5 which is contrary to such provision would not have any enforceability in law. 6.5 It is observed that the applicant’s claim that the disability certificate of respondent no. 5 is forged and fabricated has been made without supporting evidence and that it stands rebutted by respondents no. 2 and 4 who have clarified that the disability certificate in respect of respondent no. 5 was verified by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

6.6. It is further noted that in the OA No. 1449 of 2024 adjudicated by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal, the respondent no. 5 herein was the applicant and the applicant herein was arrayed as respondent no. 4. The judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 therein is extracted below: “Heard Shri Gaurav Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Devi Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the official respondents as well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has approached this Tribunal for releasing of family pension in favour of the applicant. He further submits that by the efflux of time, instant Original Application has become infructuous as the applicant has been granted family pension and same has been credited in the account of applicant on 25.09.2025 and as such, same may be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object the same.

4. Accordingly, instant original application stands dismissed as infructuous.” (emphasis supplied) It is observed that the applicant herein, who was private respondent no. 4 in OA No. 1449/2024, did not object to grant of family pension to respondent no. 5 herein, who was the applicant in that OA. Having acquiesced in grant of family pension to respondent no. 5 in OA No. 1449/2024, the applicant is estopped from challenging the same in the present lis. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.10.22 14:36:39 +05'30'