The family pension would be payable to more than one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to that effect; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice Navin Sinha & Justice Ashok Bhushan

The SC {TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS v. RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS} holds that Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990,  recognises the nomination of a wife or wives for the purpose of family pension. It was also held that the family pension did not constitute a part of the estate of the deceased. It was held that the right to family pension in more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in view of nomination in favour of respondent no.1 alone, appellant no 1 in the facts of the case can also be said to have waived her statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under the   settlement   deed. It was further held that the deceased   resided   exclusively   with respondent   no.1   and   occasionally   visited   appellant   no.1.   The deceased was exclusively taken care of by respondent no.1 during his illness including the expenditure incurred on his treatment. It was held that in view of the statutory rules, it is not possible to accept the argument that respondent no.1 was nominated only for purpose of receipt of the family pension and per force was required to share it equally with appellant no.1.

Further held that Rule 35 (5) provides that for the purpose of Rules 36, 37 and 38, family in relation to a government servant means wife or wives, including judicially separated wife. Rule 38 provides for nomination to   be   made   by   the   government   servant   in   Form   1   or   2   or   3 conferring on one or more persons, the right to receive death come retirement gratuity that may be due to him. It was held that in view of the partition deed the deceased while filling his nomination in the prescribed Form under Rule 38 mentioned the name of respondent no.1 only as the sole beneficiary of family pension. It was held that Rule 40(6) is conditional in nature and does not vest an automatic statutory right in appellant no.1 to equal share in the family pension. It was further held that the family pension would be payable to more than one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to that effect and which option was open to him under the Pension Rules.

It was also held while dismissing the appeal that family pension undoubtedly is not part of the estate of the deceased and will be regulated by the Pension Rules which confer a statuary right in the beneficiary eligible to the same.

In the present case, the   appellants   were   aggrieved   by   the   denial   of   succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the District Judge, East District, Gangtok, affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by the SC, consequently, appellant no. 1 stands denied the family pension which has been granted to respondent no.1 alone.