Widows of govt servants entitled to family pension even after remarriage: CAT
NEW DELHI: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has said the widow of a deceased government servant is eligible for family pension even after remarriage.
Administrative member Praveen Mahajan ordered restoration of the family pension to Delhi resident Renu Gupta (47), wife of late Pawan Kumar Gupta, an employee of the Defence Ministry at the time of his death, saying Gupta had requested for transfer of the family pension in the name of her son after her remarriage without understanding the consequences.
The CAT asked the Ministry of Defence to transfer the pension claim to her from her son’s name within four months.
“Without understanding the consequences, she requested for transfer of the family pension in the name of her son after her marriage. However, the said family pension will become inadmissible after the son attains the age of 25 years,” the tribunal said, adding that, “The government has held that even in the case of remarriage of a widow, the family pension can be given”.
The bench rejected the contention of the ministry and said that she was “legally entitled for family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972” and there seems to be “no legal bar in re-transferring the pension in her name”.
The Defence Ministry had appointed Gupta as a storekeeper in 1998 on compassionate ground after the death of her husband the year before.
She was also granted family pension in accordance to Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and other retiral benefits were offered.
Gupta remarried after, which at her request, the family pension was sanctioned afresh to their son, Karan Gupta in 2002.
However, in 2013, she had sent multiple requests for restoration of her family pension, which was subsequently rejected every time and she was informed that she could not be granted the pension since she had re-married.
During the hearing, the counsel for the ministry reiterated that Extra Ordinary Pension Rules are applicable only when the death of the employee is attributable to government service, which was not the case here and her claim for it after 20 years of her husband’s death had no merit.