Justice Kaushik Goswami, Gauhati High Court
Nomination Of Another Person In Pension Records Cannot Override Legally Wedded Wife’s Family Pension Right: Gauhati High Court
|The Court held that the family pension, in the case at hand, was based on the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, and cannot be denied to a legally wedded wife merely because another woman was named in the pension records, PPO or GPO.
The Gauhati High Court, while directing reconsideration of a family pension claim made by the legally wedded wife of a deceased government employee, has held that nomination of another woman in pension records cannot override the wife’s statutory entitlement to family pension under Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the wife of a deceased government employee seeking release of family pension, arrears and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, after the authorities declined to process her claim on the ground that another woman had been named in the pension papers, Pension Payment Order and Gratuity Payment Order.
A Bench of Justice Kaushik Goswami observed: “The nomination made by the deceased employee in favour of Smt. Gayatri Dutta, describing her as his wife, cannot override or defeat the statutory entitlement flowing from Rule 143 of the Pension Rules. A nomination is only an administrative arrangement facilitating payment and cannot enlarge or create substantive rights in favour of a person who is otherwise not entitled under the governing statutory provisions. Therefore, the mere fact that the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and the Gratuity Payment Order (GPO) were issued reflecting the name of Smt. Gayatri Dutta cannot be a valid ground for denying the petitioner’s lawful claim.”
Advocate S. Nath appeared for the petitioner. Government Advocate C.K.S. Baruah appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner claimed that she had married the deceased employee under Hindu rites and customs, and that two daughters were born from the marriage. The deceased later filed a divorce proceeding, but it was dismissed for default and non-prosecution. No decree of divorce was ever passed.
The authorities resisted the claim by pointing out that the deceased employee had later nominated another woman as his wife in his pension papers. On that basis, the PPO and GPO were issued in the nominee’s name.
The petitioner argued that she continued to be the legally wedded wife till the employee’s death, and that the family pension was a statutory right governed by the Pension Rules, not by nomination.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee was not disputed, and that the divorce proceeding had never resulted in dissolution of the marriage.
The Court observed: “The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The marriage between the petitioner and late Sankar Dutta is not disputed. It is also not disputed that two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. Although the deceased employee had instituted a matrimonial proceeding seeking dissolution of the marriage, the said proceeding admittedly stood dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 02.06.2010. Consequently, no decree of divorce was ever passed by a competent court dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased employee.”
It added: “Therefore, in the eye of law, the marriage between them continued to subsist till the death of late Sankar Dutta on 04.01.2021.”
Since the deceased employee professed Hindu religion, the Court held that any subsequent marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage would be void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court stated: “Under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage solemnized during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage is void. Therefore, unless the earlier marriage stood dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by a competent court, any subsequent marriage contracted by the deceased employee would have no legal sanctity.”
The Bench further held: “The legal consequences flowing from such position cannot be altered merely because the deceased employee described another woman as his wife in the pension papers or nominated her for receiving pensionary benefits.”
The Court examined Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, and held that entitlement to family pension arises from the statutory scheme, not from nomination.
The Court observed: “A plain reading of Rule 143 leaves no manner of doubt that the entitlement to family pension does not arise on the basis of nomination but flows directly from the statutory provisions governing pension. The Rule identifies the class of persons who are entitled to receive family pension.”
It further stated: “Therefore, unless a person falls within the definition of “family” as contemplated under the Pension Rules, such person cannot claim family pension merely because his or her name has been incorporated in the nomination form submitted by the deceased employee.”
Relying on Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) and Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta (2009), the Court reiterated that nomination does not determine succession or create beneficial ownership unless the governing statute says so.
The Court held: “Nomination does not determine succession nor does it confer title to the amount payable unless the governing statute specifically provides that the nominee shall become the beneficial owner of the amount.”
It added: “Therefore, where the governing Pension Rules specifically identify the person entitled to receive family pension, such statutory entitlement cannot be defeated by a unilateral nomination made by the deceased employee.”
The Court emphasized that family pension is a statutory benefit intended to provide financial security to surviving family members.
The Court observed: “Family pension stands on a different footing from other retiral dues. It is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace. It is a statutory benefit intended to provide financial security to the surviving members of the family of the deceased Government servant.”
It further stated: “The eligibility to receive family pension is determined exclusively by the Pension Rules and not by the personal wishes of the employee expressed through a nomination.”
Conclusion
The Court directed the State authorities, Director of Economics and Statistics, and Accountant General to examine the petitioner’s claim afresh in light of its observations, within two months.
The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: Shibani Dutta v. State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:10193)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate S. Nath
Respondents: Government Advocate C.K.S. Baruah; Advocate S.K. Medhi; Advocate S. Sharma