Family Pension Beyond Employee’s Unilateral Control, Estranged Wife’s Pension Can’t Be Revoked By Nomination: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court observed that family pension is statutory and beyond the employee’s unilateral control. Thus, the 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.
A writ was filed against the order of the Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Mirzapur, which rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of family pension.
The Bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held, “This Court feels that the family pension is statutory and beyond the employee’s unilateral control. Family pension is recognized as a legal entitlement, not charity.“
Advocate jitendra prasad represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Jay Ram Pandey represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
The husband of the petitioner was the Assistant Teacher in a Basic School run by Basic Shiksha Parishad and passed away in 2019. Thus, the wife moved an application requesting for sanction of family pension.
However, the petitioner’s claim of family pension was rejected on the ground that her name has not been mentioned in the application requesting for payment of pension as moved by the petitioner’s husband, in the column ‘details of family”. Neither in Part-III of the application, photo of the petitioner was pasted nor her name finds place in the earlier pension papers which were submitted by her husband for sanction of pension.
It was contended that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner was the wife of the deceased by the Gram Pradhan of the village. Further, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was granted maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month which proves that she was the wife of the deceased, hence she was entitled for family pension.
While the Respondents contended that the deceased mentioned the name of his son as the applicant for family pension, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any such claim being sought for in the writ petition.
Court’s Analysis
The Allahabad High Court Court noted that the family pension is governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Regulations and the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 and the definition of ‘family’ includes spouse, wife or husband, as the case may be, sons (including step and adopted), unmarried and widowed daughters (including step and adopted), brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried and widowed sisters (including step-brothers and step-sisters), father, mother, married daughters (including step-daughters) and children of pre-deceased son.
The Court also noted that the nomination was in favour of the elder son, who was nearly 32 years of age at the time of death of his father; therefore, it was the petitioner who was legally wedded wife, and was entitled for the family pension.
“The age, and the fact that the son might have been earning at that stage makes him ineligible for the family pension”, the Court added.
The Court relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Union of India v. Sathikumari amma (2025) wherein it was observed that family pension is not a part of employee’s estate and cannot be revoked via any declaration or nomination by the deceased. It further observed that the employee cannot exclude legally wedded spouse from receiving pension, such departure is constitutionally invalid.
“Family pension is recognized as a legal entitlement, not charity”, the Court said.
Consequently, the Court ordered release of family pension in favour of the estranged wife over the nominated son.
“From the record, it is evident that the petitioner was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month from her husband to maintain herself, however, after his death, when she was 62 years old, there was nothing to maintain herself except family pension, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside”the Court said.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Urmila Singh V. State of UP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:121667)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Jitendra Prasad, Niraj Kumar Singh and Rajesh Kumar Singh
Respondents: Advocate Jay Ram Pandey