Supreme Court Upholds Pension Nomination: Tulsa Devi Nirola vs. Radha Nirola (2020)

Date of the Judgment: March 4, 2020

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).1835 OF 2020

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can a government employee’s family pension be claimed by a first wife when the employee nominated his second wife as the sole beneficiary, especially when a settlement deed exists between the wives? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the interpretation of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990. The core issue was whether the first wife had a statutory right to a share of the family pension despite the husband’s nomination and the existence of a settlement deed. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

Ram Chandra Nirola, a government employee, had two wives. Tulsa Devi Nirola was his first wife, and they had two children. During the subsistence of his first marriage, Ram Chandra Nirola married Radha Nirola on May 9, 1987, and they had three children. Before his retirement on June 30, 2009, Ram Chandra Nirola executed a settlement deed on June 30, 2008, dividing his movable and immovable properties between his two wives. Ram Chandra Nirola passed away on April 13, 2015. Following his death, Tulsa Devi Nirola and her children applied for a succession certificate, which was denied. The family pension was granted solely to Radha Nirola.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, Tulsa Devi Nirola and her children, were denied a succession certificate by the District Judge, East District, Gangtok, which was affirmed by the High Court. The denial was based on the settlement deed dated June 30, 2008. Consequently, the family pension was granted to the second wife, Radha Nirola, alone. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990, specifically Rule 40(6), which addresses the distribution of family pensions among multiple widows. The Supreme Court also considered the Sikkim Rules of 1963, which were in effect before the extension of the Hindu Marriage Act to Sikkim. Rule 27 of the Sikkim Rules states:

“27. Nothing contained in this Rule shall effect the validity of any marriage not solemnized under its provisions; nor shall this Rule be, deemed directly or indirectly to affect the validity of any mode of contracting marriage.”

Rule 35(5) of the Pension Rules defines family as “wife or wives, including judicially separated wife”. Rule 38 provides for nomination by the government servant to receive death-cum-retirement gratuity. Rule 40(6) states:

“40. Family Pension-

(6) (a) (i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares….”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that Rule 40(6) of the Pension Rules provides a statutory right to equitable distribution of the family pension between the two wives.
• They contended that family pension is not part of the deceased’s estate and cannot be denied to the first wife based on the settlement deed.
• The appellants argued that the second marriage was void under the Sikkim Rules of 1963, as it occurred during the subsistence of the first marriage.
• They submitted that even if the second marriage was not void, the first wife was entitled to an equal share of the family pension.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Sikkim Rules of 1963 do not apply as the second marriage was not solemnized under those rules.
• They contended that the deceased had nominated the second wife as the sole beneficiary of the family pension under Rule 38 of the Pension Rules.
• The respondents argued that the deceased consciously did not nominate the first wife for the family pension because of the partition deed, where he had already balanced the interests of both wives.
• They submitted that Rule 40(6) is conditional and only applies if the employee nominates more than one wife for the family pension, which the deceased did not do.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

• Whether the first wife is entitled to a share of the family pension when the deceased husband nominated the second wife as the sole beneficiary.
• Whether the settlement deed executed between the two wives has any bearing on the distribution of family pension.
• Whether the second marriage was void under the Sikkim Rules of 1963.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Smt. Violet Issaac and ors. vs. Union of India & ors., (1991) 1 SCC 725: The Supreme Court of India held that family pension is not part of the estate of the deceased. The court distinguished this case as the rules did not provide for nomination and the person entitled to the family pension was designated.
• Vidhyadhari & Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 238: The Supreme Court of India accepted the claim of the second wife to receive pension based on nomination, where the deceased was residing with the second wife to the exclusion of the first wife. The court balanced the equities by granting 1/5th share to the first wife in the properties.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 27 of the Sikkim Rules of 1963: States that the validity of marriages not solemnized under these rules is not affected.
• Rule 35(5) of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990: Defines family as “wife or wives, including judicially separated wife”.
• Rule 38 of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990: Provides for nomination for death-cum-retirement gratuity.
• Rule 40(6) of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990: States that family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares if payable to more than one widow.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court distinguished Smt. Violet Issaac and ors. vs. Union of India & ors., (1991) 1 SCC 725* stating that the case was not applicable to the present facts as the rules did not provide for nomination. The Court followed Vidhyadhari & Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 238* to support the nomination of the second wife. The Court interpreted Rule 27 of the Sikkim Rules of 1963, holding that the second marriage was not solemnized under these rules and hence not invalidated by them. The Court cited Rule 35(5) of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 to define family for pension purposes and Rule 38 of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990 regarding nomination for gratuity. The Court interpreted Rule 40(6) of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990, holding that this rule is conditional and does not grant an automatic right to equal share of family pension.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The deceased’s nomination of the second wife as the sole beneficiary of the family pension.
• The conditional nature of Rule 40(6) of the Pension Rules, which does not grant an automatic right to an equal share of family pension to multiple wives.
• The existence of a settlement deed between the two wives, which the first wife had accepted and acted upon.
• The fact that the deceased was residing with and taken care of by the second wife during his illness.

The Court emphasized the importance of the deceased’s nomination and the conditional nature of the pension rules, while also considering the factual context of the settlement deed and the deceased’s living arrangements. This indicates a greater weight to legal interpretation of the rules than the facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the first wife was not entitled to a share of the family pension. The court reasoned that the deceased had nominated the second wife as the sole beneficiary, and Rule 40(6) of the Pension Rules is conditional and does not grant an automatic right to an equal share. The court also considered the settlement deed, which the first wife had accepted and acted upon, as a waiver of her statutory right to the pension in lieu of the benefits received under the deed. The court stated:

“The family pension would be payable to more than one wife only if the government servant had made a nomination to that effect and which option was open to him under the Pension Rules.”

The Court further observed:

“The right to family pension in more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in view of nomination in favour of respondent no 1 alone, appellant no 1 in the facts of the case can also be said to have waived her statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under the settlement deed.”

The Court also noted:

“In view of the statutory rules, it is not possible to accept the argument that respondent no.1 was nominated only for purpose of receipt of the family pension and per force was required to share it equally with appellant no.1.”

The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

Key Takeaways

• A government employee’s nomination of a beneficiary for family pension is crucial.
• Rule 40(6) of the Sikkim Services (Pension) Rules, 1990, does not provide an automatic right to an equal share of family pension for multiple wives.
• A settlement deed accepted and acted upon by a wife can be considered a waiver of her statutory right to pension.
• Family pension is not part of the deceased’s estate and is governed by pension rules.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the nomination made by a government employee for family pension is paramount, and the right to family pension for multiple wives is conditional and not absolute. This judgment clarifies that a settlement deed, when accepted and acted upon, can waive the statutory right to a share in the family pension. The Supreme Court upheld the previous position of law as laid down in Vidhyadhari & Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 238 that a nomination in favour of the second wife is valid.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court ruled that the first wife was not entitled to a share of the family pension due to the deceased’s nomination of the second wife as the sole beneficiary and the existence of a settlement deed, which the first wife had accepted. The judgment emphasizes the importance of nomination in pension matters and the conditional nature of the pension rules.