A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar,J.
1. The 9th respondent in O.A. No. 292 of 2021 is the petitioner herein aggrieved by the order dated 13-09-2022 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in the Original Application.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the OP (CAT ) are as follows:
The Tribunal was essentially adjudicating upon the inter se claims of Smt. Sobhana, the applicant in the O.A and Smt. Chandini, the 9th respondent in the Original Application, to the pensionary benefits due to the legal heirs of one Raghavan, who was an employee with the Postal Department who took VRS therefrom on 8-09-2004 and eventually died on 13-03-2017. Apparently, the said Raghavan had entered into an agreement of marriage with Chandini and pursuant to that was married to her on 20-09-1971. At the time of entering into service, therefore, he nominated Smt. Chandini for receiving his pensionary benefits under the CCS Pension Rules. Between 1992 and 1994, Smt. Chandini had been admitted to hospital and was undergoing treatment in connection with an uterine ailment and for the purposes of looking after her, she had engaged one Sobhana as a home nurse. It is alleged that Raghavan had an illicit relationship with the said Sobhana, and two children were born of that relationship. Presumably, with a view to provide for his children in the said relationship, Raghavan modified his nomination for the purposes of the CCS Pension Rules and gave a new nomination showing Chandini and Hari Sambhu, his elder son through Sobhana, as nominees. Later, Raghavan took VRS and left the services in the Postal Department with effect from 8-09-2004 and while processing his pension papers, it was found that he had given a third nomination by excluding Smt. Chandini as a nominee and showing Sobhana and her two children as his nominees. As already noticed, Raghavan died on 13-3-2017 and the issue then arose as to who among Chandini or Sobhana was entitled to receive the family pension due to the legal heirs of Raghavan.
3. Litigations were commenced by Smt. Sobhana before the Family Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal for establishing her status as the legally wedded wife of Raghavan and also for claiming her right in the properties of Raghavan. Before the family court, Smt. Sobhana had initially instituted a petition for injunction to restrain Smt. Chandini from entering the residential property occupied by Sobhana and her children. Later, she included a prayer for declaration of her status as the legally wedded wife of Raghavan. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Smt. Sobhana sought a direction to the postal department to pay the family pension amounts due in respect of Raghavan to her. The Family Court initially allowed the injunction petition preferred by Sobhana after recording the submission made on behalf of Smt. Chandini that she had decided to withdraw her claim for the residential property of Raghavan pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the parties in the course of mediation. Later, the Family Court also passed an order declaring the status of Sobhana as the legally wedded wife of Raghavan. The said order was passed in a Review Application preferred by Sobhana, and taking note of the memo filed by the learned counsel for Smt. Chandini stating that she had no objection to the grant of such a declaration. Taking note of the said developments, when the OA came up before consideration before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the order of the Postal Department that was impugned before the Tribunal was not in conformity with the declaration of status of Sobhana by the Family Court, which had not been challenged by the time the matter came up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned order of the Postal Department that had directed the payment of the family pension amounts due to Raghavan to Smt. Chandini and directed the Department to effect payment of family pension amounts together with arrears to Smt. Sobhana within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
4. Before us, it is the contention of Sri. Ramesh Babu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the declaratory order that was passed by the Family Court in the Review Petition preferred by Smt. Sobhana has since been carried in appeal before this Court in Mat.Appeal No. 719 of 2022 and the matter is currently posted for considering the objections in the delay condonation application in the said appeal. The apprehension of Sri. Ramesh Babu now appears to be only with regard to the fate of his clients claim to the family pension amounts of Raghavan, in the light of the directions issued by the Administrative Tribunal in the order impugned in this OP (CAT). He points out that in the event of the Mat Appeal preferred by his client being allowed, and his client being eventually declared as the legally wedded wife of Raghavan, her claim in respect of the family pension amounts will be frustrated. This is more so, because the order of the Administrative Tribunal is based solely on the declaratory relief granted by the Family Court as noticed above.
5. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. Nirmal V. Nair, the learned counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal had considered the entire aspects of the case before it and had issued the impugned directions based on the declaration by the Family Court that Smt. Sobhana was the legally wedded wife of Late Raghavan. It is submitted, therefore, that so long as the declaration of status of Smt. Sobhana as the legally wedded wife of Raghavan stands, her entitlement to the family pension amount has to be seen as in accordance with the provisions of the CCS Pension Rules.
6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the issue as to whether it is Smt. Chandini or Smt. Sobhana who is the legally wedded wife of Late Raghavan has still not attained finality for an appeal is pending before this Court at the instance of Smt. Chandini against the declaration given by the Family Court. In a situation where the legal status of the parties, as the legally wedded wife of late Raghavan, has still not attained finality, any payment effected by the Postal Department to the nominees of the late employee can only be seen as a payment made to such nominees, to be kept in trust for the real legal heirs who are entitled to the same in accordance with the rules and whose legal status as such is determined by the competent court. In other words, in situations where the status of a nominee as the legal heir of the employee in question is yet to be established before a competent court, a nominee under the CCS Pension Rules can only be seen as the hand that receives the payment due to the legal heirs of the late employee and the nominee by the mere fact of receipt of the payment from the employer does not become legally entitled to retain the said payment. In cases where there is a dispute between the legal heirs of the deceased employee, the legal entitlement to the payment has to be determined by the competent court.
7. In the instant case, in view of the fact that the declaration of Smt. Sobhana's status as the legally wedded wife of late Raghavan has not attained finality, we feel that the present OP CAT can be disposed by modifying the directions issued in the impugned order of the tribunal to the limited extent of clarifying that, pursuant to the directions of the tribunal in the impugned order, Smt. Sobhana shall receive the payments from the Postal Department and hold the same on trust for the benefit of the persons who are ultimately declared as entitled to the same, based on the outcome of the litigation currently pending before this court as Mat.Appeal No. 719 of 2022.
The OP (CAT) is disposed of as above.
