Nomination Cannot Override Statutory Right of Legally Wedded Wife to Family Pension, Rules Gauhati High Court

Gauhati High Court holds that a government employee's nomination of another woman as wife in pension papers cannot defeat the statutory family pension entitlement of his legally wedded spouse under the Assam Pension Rules.

Justice Kaushik Goswami, sitting singly at the Gauhati High Court, has held that a nomination made by a deceased government employee in favour of a woman described as his wife cannot override the statutory claim of his legally wedded spouse to family pension under Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The judgment, delivered on 23 July 2026 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6004 of 2023, arose from the refusal of Assam government authorities to release family pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity to Smt. Shibani Dutta, whose husband had retired in 2002 and died on 4 January 2021 without ever securing a decree of divorce against her. The Court directed the competent authorities to re-examine her claim afresh and complete the entire exercise within two months.

The Dispute Before the Court

Smt. Shibani Dutta married late Sankar Dutta under Hindu rites at Karimganj in June 1970. Two daughters, Anindita Dutta and Madhumita Dutta, were born of the marriage. Sankar Dutta served as Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Haflong, under the Government of Assam, and retired on attaining superannuation on 28 February 2002. Upon retirement, he received all admissible retiral benefits except the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, and continued to draw monthly pension until his death on 4 January 2021.

While in service, Sankar Dutta had originally nominated the petitioner — describing her as his wife — for his terminal benefits. A Form VII dated 13 June 1994, submitted under the State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1982, similarly showed the petitioner as his wife with the two daughters as alternate beneficiaries.

After retirement, Sankar Dutta filed F.C. (Civil) Case No. 10/2007 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar at Silchar, seeking a divorce. Both parties remained absent in those proceedings, and the Family Court dismissed the petition for default and non-prosecution by order dated 2 June 2010. No decree of divorce was ever passed.

Despite this, when processing his pension papers, Sankar Dutta nominated a different woman — Smt. Gayatri Dutta — describing her as his wife, for family pension and gratuity. On the strength of that nomination, the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, issued the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and the Gratuity Payment Order (GPO) showing Smt. Gayatri Dutta as the family pensioner. After Sankar Dutta's death, Smt. Shibani Dutta's repeated representations yielded nothing, prompting her to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Legal Question

The core question the Court identified was whether a person merely nominated by a deceased government employee for family pension purposes can claim that benefit despite not falling within the definition of “family” under the Pension Rules, and whether such a nomination can override the statutory entitlement of the legally wedded spouse.

The State's position was straightforward: the competent authorities had acted on the pension records before them. The deceased employee himself had declared Smt. Gayatri Dutta as his wife in the pension papers. The respondents argued that, having acted on the records, no arbitrariness could be attributed to them.

Counsel for Smt. Shibani Dutta countered that family pension is a statutory right governed by the Pension Rules, not a benefit that flows from nomination. He argued that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, any marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid prior marriage is void, and the deceased employee could not have conferred the legal status of wife upon another woman.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Goswami began with what was not in dispute. The marriage between the petitioner and Sankar Dutta was not contested. The two daughters born of that marriage were not contested. The divorce proceeding before the Family Court had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 2 June 2010. There was, therefore, no decree of divorce ever passed by any competent court. In law, the marriage subsisted until Sankar Dutta's death on 4 January 2021.

The Court then turned to Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which defines “family” for purposes of family pension. In the case of a male government servant, the Rule specifically includes his wife, minor sons, and unmarried minor daughters. It provides that family pension shall first be payable to the widow, and thereafter, in the event of her death or remarriage, to eligible children. The Rule makes no reference to nomination as a basis of entitlement.

The Court observed that a plain reading of Rule 143 leaves no doubt that entitlement to family pension flows directly from the statutory provisions and not from any nomination. Unless a person falls within the definition of “family” as contemplated by the Rules, that person cannot claim family pension simply because their name appears in a nomination form.

Justice Goswami then addressed the broader legal position on nominations. He referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Smt. Sarbati Devi and Anr. v. Smt. Usha Devi, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424, and Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and Ors., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 680, for the proposition that a nomination does not displace the lawful beneficiary entitled under the governing statute. A nominee receives the amount for and on behalf of the person legally entitled, unless the statute expressly provides that the nominee shall become the beneficial owner. The Pension Rules contain no such express provision.

The Court was equally clear on the Hindu law dimension. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage solemnised during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage is void. Since the divorce proceeding instituted by Sankar Dutta was dismissed and no decree followed, any subsequent relationship he may have had with Smt. Gayatri Dutta had no legal sanctity as a marriage. Describing her as his wife in pension papers and nominating her for benefits could not alter those legal consequences.

The Court drew specific support from a coordinate bench decision in Tinku Das and 2 Others v. State of Assam and 9 Others, WP(C) No. 6073/2019, which had held that a woman claiming to be the second wife of a Hindu employee, during the subsistence of the first marriage, is not entitled to family pension on the basis of nomination or otherwise. Justice Goswami noted that the coordinate bench had observed that personal laws governing Hindus do not permit a second marriage and that the legally wedded wife alone is entitled to the benefit of family pension under the Pension Rules. The present bench respectfully agreed with and followed that view.

The Court also recorded that the earlier nomination by Sankar Dutta — the one made while in service naming the petitioner as his wife — and the Form VII of June 1994 under the Group Insurance Scheme consistently recognised Smt. Shibani Dutta as his legally wedded wife. The subsequent nomination in pension papers in favour of Smt. Gayatri Dutta was an administrative act that could not override a statutory right.

On family pension's character, the Court stated that it is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace. It is a statutory benefit intended to provide financial security to surviving family members. Eligibility is determined exclusively by the Pension Rules and not by the personal wishes of the employee expressed through a nomination. Where the Rules recognise only the legally wedded wife as the primary beneficiary, that statutory right cannot be divested by describing another person as wife in pension records.

The Court did add one qualification. The respondents had declined the petitioner's claim solely on account of the nomination, and had not conducted any independent determination of her legal status or entitlement under the Rules. The actual release of pensionary benefits must therefore follow due verification by the competent authority, not automatic payment on the strength of the judgment alone.

Directions Issued

Justice Goswami directed the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam (the Department concerned), the Director of Economics and Statistics, and the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, to examine the petitioner's claim afresh in the light of the Court's observations.

If, upon verification, the petitioner is found to be the legally wedded wife of late Sankar Dutta and otherwise eligible under the Pension Rules, the authorities must:

• recognise the petitioner as the lawful beneficiary for the purpose of family pension;
• take immediate steps for correction of the PPO and the GPO wherever such correction is found necessary;
• release the family pension together with all consequential arrears payable from the date the same became due; and
• release the admissible Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, if not already paid to any person legally entitled, along with any other retiral benefits lawfully payable to the petitioner.

The Court gave a two-month deadline — running from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order — for completing the entire exercise, including verification, issuance of revised PPO/GPO, and release of admissible benefits. No order as to costs was made. The prayer for interest at 20% per annum on delayed payment was not addressed as a distinct direction in the operative portion of the judgment.

Outcome

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6004 of 2023 was disposed of. The Court held that the nomination of Smt. Gayatri Dutta cannot override the petitioner's statutory entitlement under Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969. The PPO and GPO issued in the name of Smt. Gayatri Dutta do not confer upon her any legal entitlement if their issuance is contrary to the Pension Rules. Smt. Shibani Dutta's claim for family pension and DCRG is to be considered afresh and resolved within two months.