Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J): The applicant, namely, Smt. Raj Kumari filed OA No.3343/2012 seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to give her employment on compassionate ground on account of death of late Shri Ram Sajivan who had been working with the respondent No. 2 as Assistant D.G-cum-OSD vide employee Code No.00157 and died on 18.01.2012. Nevertheless, subsequently she moved an application, i.e. Misc. Application No.663/2014 seeking amendment of the OA and prayed for issuance of direction to give compassionate appointment to Ms.Rashmi Pandey who was sought to be impleaded as applicant No.2 in the OA. In the OA and MA, the applicant has espoused that she was legally wedded wife of late Shri Ram Sajivan and is entitled to all such benefits as are admissible to the widow of a deceased Government servant on his death. OA 3339/2012 The Original Application No. 3339/2012 has been filed by Smt. Raj Kumari and her five daughters claiming themselves as widow and daughters of late Shri Ram Sajivan, praying for issuance of direction to the respondents to release all the terminal benefits payable on account of death of late Shri Ram Sajivan to them. In both the Original Applications, the applicants have placed on record declaration of performance of marriage of Smt. Raj Kumari, i.e. applicant No.1. In both the Original Applications, the identity cards issued by Unique Identification Authority of India, Government of India, wherein the name of their husband/father is shown as Ram Sajivan are enclosed as evidence of the applicants being legal heir of late Shri Ram Sajivan. In the death certificate and the letter dated 8.02.2012 issued by Central Government Officers Residents Welfare Association, the applicant no.1 is shown as widow of late Shri Ram Sajivan. The applicant No.1 made a representation dated 21.02.2012 to Assistant Managing Director (Establishment) praying for release of terminal benefits payable to the family/widow/dependents of her husband to her. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT issued a letter F.No.31-12/2012-Pen (T) dated 27.03.2012 addressed to the said applicant and informed her that while working as ADG in Department of Telecommunication, late Shri Ram Sajivan had nominated the following persons for the benefits of GPF, CGEIS, death gratuity and family pension with making alternative nomination in the name of his grandmother Smt. Mansa Devi and his uncle Shri Rishi Ram. Details of family CGEGIS nomination DCRG nomination GPF nomination 1.Mr.Amit- S 2.Miss. Pratima-D 3.Miss Priti-D 1.Mr.Amit S (50%) 2.Miss Pratima-D(25%) 3.Miss Priti-D (25%) 1.Mr.Amit- S (50%) 2.Miss Pratima-D (25%) 3.Miss Priti-D(25%) 1.Mr.Amit- S (50%) 2.Miss Pratima-D(25%) 3.Miss Priti-D (25%) In the letter, it is also espoused that the deceased Government servant further revised the details of his family on 4.12.2008 and nominated his daughters Sanjana Pandey (D.O.B-22.02.2003) and Anushi Pandey (D.O.B-24.05.2005) for the purpose of family pension. In para 3 of the communication, it is highlighted that the second marriage being nullity, the second wife will not be entitled to the family pension, as a legally wedded wife. Nevertheless, the pensionary benefits would be granted to the children of a deceased Government servant/pensioner from such type of void marriage when their turn comes in accordance with Rule 54(8), subject to the condition that they will have no claim whatsoever to receive family pension as long as the legally wedded wife is the recipient of the same. Finally, the applicant was required to furnish certain documents for taking action to decide the eligibility. For easy reference, para 4 of the letter is extracted hereinbelow:- 4.It is, therefore, requested kindly to furnish the following information/documents for taking action to decide the eligibility: Whether you were aware at the time of marriage that late Shri Ram Sanjivan was married and having a living wife, if yes, the reason for second marriage may be intimated. Whether you were aware after your marriage about the first marriage of Late Shri Ram Sanjivan, if yes, what action has been taken by you/ if not, the reason may be intimated. Whether you were aware of the nomination made by the deceased officer in respect of the children from the first wedlock, if so, the reason for not objecting the same at his lifetime. Whether your marriage had been solemnized under Hindu Marriage Act with proper ceremonies and in due form as per Hindus rituals/customs. Any legally supporting documents establishing your valid marriage with Late Shri Ram Sanjivan and judicially separation of Smt.Indira Kumari from Late Shri Ram Sanjivan. The applicant No.1 submitted her response to said letter dated 3.04.2012 (Annexure G to OA no. 3339/2012). Thereafter, she made further representation to respondents to settle retiral benefits of late Shri Ram Sajivan. Being unsuccessful, she filed the present Original Application.

2. In reply to OA no. 3339/2012 filed by the respondents through Mrs. Rinchen Ongmu Bhutia, Advocate, the contents of aforementioned communication dated 27.03.2012 have been reiterated and it is further pleaded that the respondent No.3 had instituted judicial proceedings against late Shri Ram Sajivan for maintenance of herself and her three children and she was declared entitled to Rs.6000/- as maintenance which was paid to her by family Court, Varanasi. It is also the stand of official respondents (R-1 and 2) taken by them in their counter reply that both the applicants and respondent No.3 as well as their children have filed succession petition nos. 211/2012 (R-3) and No.64/2012 (applicants) in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) Varanasi and the Court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for the purpose of pensionary benefits payable on account of death of the deceased Government servant to the legal heirs/ dependents/family. In para 3 of the reply, they have given the details of terminal benefits admissible to the family of the deceased Government servant which read as under:- 1. GPF : Rs.4,00,545/- (2011-2012)

2. CGEGIS : Rs. 1,20,000/-

3. Death Gratuity : Rs.10,00,000/-

4. Leave Encashment : Rs.5,09,760/-

5. Family Pension : Rs.16,375/-  According to the respondents, in terms of the Rule 33 (1) of GPF (CS) Rules, 1960, Rule 50-53 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 39 C of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, Rule 54 (7) (a) (i) & (ii) and Rule 54 (8) (1)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the aforementioned benefits need to be paid to certain specified/nominated persons in a particular manner and order. Nevertheless, in para Z of the reply, the respondents have admitted that the applicant nos. 5 and 6 in the OA 3339/2012 are entitled to family pension irrespective of the legitimacy of the marriage of applicant No.1 with late Shri Ram Sajivan. The emphasis in the counter reply of respondent nos. 1 and 2 is that the terminal benefits admissible to the family of a Government servant will have to be disbursed as per the nomination made by the deceased Government servant. As far as the respondent No. 3 (Mrs.Indra Kumari) is concerned, she has entered into understanding with the applicants by way of Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2014 regarding disbursement of the terminal benefits, including family pension payable to the family of the deceased employee. Respondent No.4, Smt. Mansa Devi widow of late Shri Thakur Prasad Bhatt never entered appearance in the matter. According to learned counsel for applicants, she is mother of late Shri Ram Sajivan.

3. Regarding the sanctity and ramification of the nomination and the entitlement of nominees of the deceased, Mr.S.K.Bhaduri, learned counsel for applicants referred to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others (AIR 2000 SC 735) and submitted that the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity payable on account of death of late Shri Ram Sajivan need to be disbursed in accordance with law. Para 14 of the judgment read out by him is extracted hereinbelow:- 14. It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of this Act, children of void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolve firstly on heirs in Clause (1) which include widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). Yogmaya Devi cannot be described a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain Lal being void. Sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is, however, legal position when Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity payments which is governed by the relevant rules. It is not disputed before us that if the legal position as aforesaid is correct, there is no error with the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the judgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in LPA by the impugned judgment. Relying upon the judgment of this Tribunal in Subhash Singh Vs. Northern Railway through General Manager decided on 1.06.2006, he submitted that the children of second wife, despite her marriage with the deceased being void are legitimately entitled to pensionary benefits. Para 8 and 10 ofthe order read as under:- 8.In Rameshwari Devi (supra) the deceased employee, a Hindu, had contracted second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage. Children born out of the second marriage, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, were considered as legitimate, though the marriage itself was held void. It was further held that as no disciplinary action was taken against the deceased government employee during his life time, the plea that second marriage was in violation of the conduct rules was not held valid for denying family pension and DCRG etc. The children of the second wife, despite the second being a void marriage, were held as legitimate and entitled to pensionary benefits. Insistence upon succession certificate was dispensed with in view of an enquiry conducted by the State Government for determining entitlement of rival claimants to family pension. True that in that case the issue of compassionate appointment was not raised but the logic and rationale of the case is certainly applicable to the benefit of consideration of the request for appointment on compassionate ground. If pensionary benefits could be given to the progeny of the second wife, why not an employment on compassionate ground. Respondents have been in the wrong to rely upon the circular dated 2.1.1992 of the Railway Board for denying consideration for appointment on compassionate ground though settlement dues were directed to be paid to both the widows. Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi (supra) is the law of the land; it has to be interpreted liberally instead of taking a constricted view which would invalidate the direction contained in circular dated 2.1.1992 for non-consideration of entitlement of the second widow or her wards for compassionate employment. xxx xxx

10. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above. Annexure P-8 dated 26.8.2002 is quashed and set aside directing respondents to consider applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable post in accordance with law and instructions on the subject. As respondents have not been able to consider applicants claim despite the fact that application in this behalf had been made on 2.5.1997 and matter has been hanging fire in different cases in different courts, applicants application should be considered on merit by granting relaxation in age, if necessary, and by taking into consideration the present financial condition of the family, i.e. the brother and sisters of applicant. With reference to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi ( AIR 1984 SC 346), he submitted that the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy and the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. Para 12 of the judgment reads as under:- 12. Moreover there is one other strong circumstance in this case which dissuades us from taking a view contrary to the decisions of all other High Courts and accepting the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in the two recent judgments delivered in the year 1978 and in the year 1982. The Act has been in force from the year 1938 and all along almost all the High Courts in India have taken the view that a mere nomination effected under Section 39 does not deprive the heirs of their rights in the amount payable under a life insurance policy. Yet Parliament has not chosen to make any amendment to the Act. In such a situation unless there are strong and compelling reasons to hold that all these decisions are wholly erroneous, the Court should be slow to take a different view. The reasons given by the Delhi High Court are unconvincing. We, therefore, hold that the judgments of the Delhi High Court in Fauja Singh's case (AIR 1978 Delhi 276) (supra) and in Mrs. Uma Sehgal's case (AIR 1982 Delhi 36) (supra) do not lay down the law correctly. They are, therefore, overruled. We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of Section 39 of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.

4. I heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. As has been stated by the respondents in their reply, in terms of Rule 33 (1) of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, if a nomination is made by the subscriber in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a member or members of family, the amount standing to the credit of the subscriber shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination. According to them, the deceased Government employee nominated Mr. Amit S, Miss Pratima- D and Miss Priti to receive the GPF amount. It is not in dispute that the member or members of the family of deceased subscriber are entitled to receive terminal benefits except:- (1) sons who have attained majority; (2) sons of a deceased son who have attained majority; (3) married daughters whose husbands are alive (4) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive. For easy reference, Rule 33 of GPF Rules is extracted hereinbelow:- 33. Procedure on death of a subscriber On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made:

(i) When the subscriber leaves a family- (a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a member or members of his family subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination: (b) if no such nomination in favour of a member or members of the family of the subscriber subsists, or if such nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding, any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than a member or members of his family, become payable to the members of his family in equal shares: Provided that no share shall be payable to- (1) sons who have attained majority; (2) sons of a deceased son who have attained majority; (3) married daughters whose husbands are alive; (4) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; if there is any member of the family other than those specified in Clauses (1), (2) (3) and (4): Provided further that the widow or widows and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the share which that son would have received if he had survived the subscriber and had been exempted from the provisions of Clause (1) of the first proviso.

(ii) When the subscriber leaves no family, if a nomination made by him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of any person or persons subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination. May be the marriage of applicant No.1 with the deceased Government servant is in dispute, but it is not in dispute that the applicant nos. 2 to 6 are born out of wedlock of applicant no.1 with the deceased Government servant. Even in the counter reply filed on behalf of official respondents, it has been admitted that the deceased Government servant had revised the details of his family and had incorporated the name of applicant nos. 5 and 6 in the details of the family to receive family pension. The term family has been defined under rule 2 (3) of the Rules. In accordance with the definition so given, family means in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased sons widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber are alive, a paternal grandparent. The term child is further explained in the note below Rule 2 (c) as a legitimate child which includes an adopted child, where adoption is recognized by the personal law governing the subscriber [or a ward under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8) of 1890), who lives with the Government servant and is treated as a member of the family and to whom the Government servant has, through a special will, given the same status as that of a natural born child]. Thus the definition of child is quite exhaustive. In the present case, the deceased Government servant had himself added applicant nos. 5 and 6 in the details of his family. In terms of the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the children born out of legitimate/illegitimate/voidable/void marriages are given the equal status. For easy reference, the Section is reproduced hereinbelow:- 16.Legitimacy of children of void and voidable, marriages.- Legitimacy of children of void and voidable, marriages.- Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of any marriage under section 11 or section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if it had been dissolved instead of having been declared null and void or annulled by a decree of nullity shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is declared null and void or annulled by a decree of nullity any rights in or to the property of any person other than the parents in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents. In the circumstances, it is viewed that irrespective of the nomination, the benefit of GPF is payable to the members of the family in accordance with the rules and the nominee can only be treated as an authorized person to receive the same from the employer.

5. Regarding CGEGIS amount also, the deceased nominated Mr. Amit- S, Miss Pratima-D and Miss Priti as his nominees. Nevertheless, as has been held by Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and Another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi respondent (AIR 1984 SC 346), the nominee is only an authorized person to receive the benefit from the Insurer and the amount needs to be disbursed to the legal heirs in accordance with the law.

6. In Subhash Singh Vs. Northern Railway through General Manager decided on 1.09.2006 (ibid), this Tribunal could view that the children of second wife, despite the second marriage being void, are legitimately entitled to the pensionary benefits. Also in Mamta Sharma Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur could view that the nomination will not supersede the statutory provision of right of inheritance prescribed in various enactments and a nominee may be an authorized person to receive the terminal dues of an employee but will not become absolute owner thereof. The other legal representatives, successor of the deceased employees, being coparceners in estate would also be entitled to their share if there is no specific will made by the employee concerned. For easy reference, para 5 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- 5. The effect of nomination has to be examined. The nomination is not to be treated as a Will for a good reason that a will is executed in altogether different manner and not just mentioning a name of person in the appropriate column, prescribed in any form for submitting service details before the concerned authority. However, the nomination has to be treated as wish of the employer or his request for the purposes of disbursement of his/her terminal dues in case of death to any particular person. The nomination will not supersede the statutory provision of right of inheritance prescribed in various enactments. A nominee may be an authorized person to receive the terminal dues of an employee, but will not become absolute owner thereof. The other legal representatives, successor of the deceased employees, being coparceners in estate would also be entitled to their share if there is no specific will made by the employee concerned The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi versus Usha Devi [ (1984) 1 SCC 424)] has considered nominees interest vis-`-vis the law of succession and has reached to the conclusion that a nominee may be entitled to receive the funds, but will retain the same as a trustee for other coparceners till their claims are decided by law in accordance to the law of succession governing them. Though the aforesaid decision is rendered in the case in respect of the claim made under the Life Insurance Act, 1938, but the statutory nomination has been considered by the Apex Court. In view of the aforementioned, even if the deceased Government servant had nominated certain individuals to receive the CGEIS benefit, the legal heirs including the children from void marriage cannot be held deprived of their right to receive proportionate share in such benefits.

7. As far as the amount of DCRG is concerned, it is admitted by the respondents themselves that the same is payable to the members of the family which includes wife, husband, sons, unmarried daughters, widow daughters, father, mother, brothers below the age of 18, unmarried/widow sisters, married daughters and children of predeceased son. Regarding leave encashment also, it is not disputed that the same is payable to the widow or the eldest surviving widow or husband, the eldest surviving son or an adopted son, the eldest surviving unmarried daughter, the eldest surviving widowed daughter, the father, the mother, the eldest surviving married daughter, the eldest surviving brother below the age of 18 years, the eldest surviving unmarried sister, the eldest surviving widowed sister and eldest child of the eldest predeceased son, in the order noted hereinabove.

8. As far as the amount of family pension is concerned, it is not disputed by the official respondents themselves that even the illegitimate children are also entitled to family pension in accordance with the rules.

9. On 28.11.2013, when the OA came up for hearing, this Tribunal passed the following orders:- OA 3339/2012 It is the case of the applicants in this OA that applicant No.1 is widow of late Mr. Ram Sajivan and applicant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the daughters born out of his wedlock with applicant No.1. The prayer made in this OA is for issuance of directions to release all the pensionary benefits of service of late Mr. Ram Sajivan to the applicants. In the counter reply filed on behalf of official respondents, it is stated that after the death of the government servant, following payments are required to be made to the legal heirs of late Mr. Ram Sajivan, which read as follows: 1. GPF Rs.4,00,545/- (2001-2012)

2. CGEIS Rs.1,20,000/-

3. Death Gratuity Rs.10,00,000/-

4. Leave Encashment Rs.5,09,760/-

5. Family Pension Rs.16,375/- The only objection raised in the counter reply of the official respondents regarding entitlement of the legal heirs of late government servant for release of terminal benefits is that the deceased had submitted the nomination form for CGEIS, DCRG and GPF giving the details of family members as under:- Details of Family CGEGIS nomination DCRG Nomination GPF Nomination

1. Mr. Amit-S 1. Mr. Amit-S (50%) 1. Mr. Amit-S (50%) 1. Mr. Amit-S (50%)

2. Miss Pratima  D 2. Miss Pratima D (25%) 2. Miss Pratima D (25%) 2. Miss Pratima D (25%)

3. Miss Priti 3. Miss Priti-D (25%) 3. Miss Preti D (25%) 3. Miss Preti-D (25%) According to the official respondents, the applicant has made alternative nominations in favour of Grandmother Mansa Devi and Uncle Rishi Ram. Nevertheless in paragraph 2 (e) of the reply, it is stated that as per the marriage certificate dated 19.1.1991 issued by the District Marriage Officer at Gonda, the deceased government servant married with applicant No.1 herein. For easy reference, the contents of said paragraph are extracted hereinbelow:- 2 (e) As per the marriage certificate dated 19.01.91 issued by the district Marriage Officer at Gonda, the late deceased Govt. Servant married the applicant herein daughter of Shri Yogendra Prasad on 14.12.90 at Vill. Shitalganj, S Chhapat Dist. Gonda as per Hindu ritual/customs in the presence of the two witnesses Shri Rameshwar Upadhyay and Shri Shamboo Prasad. The applicants have also placed on record the photocopies of Aadhar Card to show that applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are the daughters of late Mr. Ram Sajivan, resident of D-9B, MIG Flats, Maya Puri, New Delhi. The said government accommodation was allotted to late government servant and the applicants herein are still staying therein. Learned counsel for applicants also produced a copy of Office Memorandum dated 27.11.2012 wherein it is provided that the share of children from illegally wedded wife in the family pension shall be payable to them in the manner given under sub Rule 7 of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 along with the legally wedded wife. The said O.M. is extracted hereinbelow:- Office Memorandum Sub: Eligibility of children from a void or voidable marriage for family pension  clarification regarding. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Departments OM No.1/16/96-P&PW (E), dated 2.12.1996 whereby it was clarified that Pensionary benefits will be granted to children of a deceased Government servant/pensioner from void or voidable marriages when their turn comes in accordance with Rule 54(8). It is mentioned in Para 4 of the O.M. That It may be noted that they will have no claim whatsoever to receive family pension as along as the legally wedded wife is the recipient of the same.

2. The matter has been re-examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) and Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It has been decided that in supersession of Para 4 of the O.M., ibid, dated 2.12.1996, the share of children from illegally wedded wife in the family pension shall be payable to them in the manner given under sub-rule 7 (C) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, along with the legally wedded wife.

3. It has also been decided that in past cases, no recovery from the previous beneficiary should be made. On receipt of an application from eligible child/children of the deceased Government employee/pensioner born to an ineligible mother, a decision regarding division or otherwise of family pension may be taken by the competent authority after satisfying himself/herself about veracity of facts and entitlement of the applicant (s).

4. As regards pensioners/family pensioners belonging to the Indian Audit and Accounts Departments, these Orders issue after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

5. This issues with the concurrence of Department of Legal Affairs vide their FTS No.3036, dated 17.10.2012.

6. This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure vide their I.D. No.530/E.V/2012, dated 23.11.2012.

7. Hindi version will follow. Learned counsel for applicants submitted with aplomb and vehemence that all the applicants are at the verge of starvation and have no other source of livelihood at all. He also produced a copy of Notice dated 13.11.2013 issued by the Estate Officer, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi asking the allotee of the accommodation, wherein the applicants are staying, to justify their stay in the accommodation and answer the material questions in this regard. Since despite the adjournments, no one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to put forth their claim, to secure ends of justice, I direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to disburse the proportionate share of all applicants Nos.2 to 6 in the arrears of family pension and provident fund to them within two weeks from today. However, such disbursement would be subject to the final outcome of the present OA as also the proceedings for succession of late Mr. Ram Sajivan. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is made clear that in the event of non-representation of said respondents on the next date of hearing, the OA would be heard on the basis of material available on record. List this OA on 17.12.2013 as part heard. OA 3343/2013 Since nobody is appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4, let fresh notice be issued to them. It is made clear that in the event of non-representation of said respondents on the next date of hearing, the OA would be heard on the basis of material available on record. List this OA on 17.12.2013 as part heard. Let a copy of this order be issued dasti. Thereafter the applicant and the respondent No.3 entered into an understanding and executed Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2014 which reads as under:-  MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Deed of Memorandum of Understanding is made and executed at Delhi on this 21st day of April, 2014 amongst:- Smt. Raj Kumari W/o Late Ram Sajivan

(ii) Ms. Rashmi Pandey D/o Late Ram Sajivan

(iii) Ms. Ranjana Pandey (Minor) D/o Late Ram Sajivan

(iv) Ms. Renuka Pandey (Minor) D/o Late Ram Sajivan

(v) Ms. Sanjana Pandey (Minor) D/o Late Ram Sajivan Ms. Anushi Pandey (Minor) D/o Late Ram Sajivan Except Ms Rashmi Pandey (All minors through their mother and Natural guardian Smt. Raj Kumar), All R/o D-98, MIG Flats, Mayapuri, New Delhi ( hereinafter called the First party)

(i) Ms. Indra Kumari W/o Late Ram Sajivan C/o Sh.D.K.Pandey, Quarter No.169B, North Railway, A.I.N.Colony, Cantt, Varanasi-2 (UP), (ii) Ms. Pratima Kumari & Ms Priti @ Shikha both D/o Late Ram Sajivan and (iii) Mr Amit Kumar S/o Late Ram Sajivan All R/0 Quarter No. 169B, North Railway, A.I.N. Colony, Cantt Varanasi-2 (hereinafter called the Second party) WHEREAS Ram Sajivan S/o Late Sh. Thakur Prasad who had been working as Assttt.-cum-OSD employee Code No.00157 with the Department of Communication, Govt. of India, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001, has expired on 18/1/2012. WHEREAS after the death of said Sh. Ram Sajivan, the first party herein has filed two petitions i.e. (i) O.A. No.3339 of 2012 titled as Raj Kumari & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary and (ii) OA No. 3343 of 2012 titled as Smt. Raj Kumari Versus Union of India through Secretary before the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The second party above named are also the parties in the aforesaid Petitions before the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. WHEREAS, aforesaid Smt. Raj Kumari has also filed a Succession Petition being Petition No. 64 of 2012 titled as Smt. Raj Kumari & others Versus State & (Smt. Indra Kumari) others which is still pending adjudication before the Learned Administrative Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. WHEREAS,Smt Raj Kumari has also filed a suit for Declaration being suit No. 97A/2013 titled as Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Smt. Indra Kumari which is still pending adjudication before the court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Malik, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. WHEREAS, the second party herein has also filed a Succession Petition titled as Smt. Indra Kumari Vs. State & others which is pending adjudication before the court at Varanasi (UP) and the proceedings of the said succession petition at Varanasi have been stayed till the final disposal of the succession petition filed by Smt. Raj Kumari at Delhi Court. WHEREAS,the aforesaid O.A(s) No.3343/2012 and 3339/2012 were listed before the Honble Principal Bench of Ld.Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi on 25/3/2014 and after prolong arguments, the parties to the present Memorandum of Understanding have amicable settled their disputes and differences so far as the right of the parties hereto in respect of Gratuity, Pensionary benefit, service benefit etc. left behind by Late Shri Ram Sajivan are concerned, in the following manner:-

(i) That it has been amicably settled and agreed between the parties hereto that the children of Smt. Raj Kumari i.e. Ms Rashmi Pandey, Ms. Ranjana Pandey, Ms.Renuka Pandey, Ms Sanjana Pandey and Ms Anushi Pandey would receive the amount payable on account of death of Late Ram Sajivan under the head G.P.F. and the leave encashment and also proportionate share in the family pension and arrears thereof.

(ii) That it has also been agreed that the children of Smt. Indra Kumari would get the entire amount under the head CGEIS, death gratuity and also the proportionate share in the family pension and arrears thereof.

(iii) That it has also been agreed that that the second party Smt. Indra Kumari and her children will have no objection if the compassionate appointment of service is given to Ms Rashmi Pandey D/o Smt. Raj Kumari and it has also been agreed that none of the second party including Smt. Indra Kumari will apply for service on compassionate ground and in fact, the second party hereto have agreed to issue their No Objection Certificate declaring that they (second party herein) have no objection if the compassionate appointment of service is given to said MS Rashmi Pandey who is the eldest daughter of Smt. Raj Kumari.

(iv) That it has also been agreed that Smt. Indra Kumari and her children issue No Objection Certificate to the department of Telecom, Govt. of India, New Delhi to the candidature of said MS Rashmi Pandey for her appointment in service on compassionate ground with the department where the deceased Ram Sajivan had been working and the present MOU would be treated as NOC on behalf of second party.

(v) That it has also been agreed that the aforesaid benefit would be released by the Department of Telecommunication to the parties hereto.

(vi) That it has also been agreed that both the parties hereto will be prosecuting/contesting the civil suit as well as the succession petition filed by Smt. Raj Kumari which are pending adjudication before Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and the same will be decided on merits. The proceedings would be continued only for the properties of the Deceased which are not the subject matter of the present OA being OA No. 3339/2012 & 3343/2012. Parties also undertake that the present settlement would not be reopened/ questioned if any circumstances whatsoever.

(vii) That the present compromise has been arrived amongst the parties hereto prejudice to their right and contentions in respect of aforesaid succession petition and the civil suit.

(viii) That it has also been agreed that the present Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by the parties hereto without prejudice their right and contentions in respect of aforesaid suit for declaration and succession petition filed by Smt. Raj Kumar. It has also been agreed between the parties hereto that the present Memorandum of Understanding will not be treated as admission or deemed admissions by either of the parties hereto.

(ix) That it has also been settled and agreed that both the parties hereto will be abide by the terms and conditions of the present Memorandum of Understanding in its letter & spirit.

(x) That the present Memorandum of Understanding has been executed and signed by both the parties hereto with their free will and consent and there is no pressure, coercion or any undue influence upon either parties in any manner whatsoever to enter into the present Memorandum of Understanding.

(xi) That Smt. Raj Kumari (for herself and on behalf of her minor children) and Ms Rashmi Pandey for first party and Smt Indra Kumari, Pratima Kumari, Priti Kumari and Amit Kumar for second party are putting their respective signatures below showing their consent to the terms and conditions of this Memorandum of Understanding.

(xii) That both the parties hereto have also agreed that they will request the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi for taking on record the present Memorandum of Understanding and will also request the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal for directing the Department of Telecommunication to act in accordance with the terms and conditions settled between the parties as elaborated in the present Memorandum of Understanding, in as much, the parties hereto have entered into the present settlement/Memorandum of Understanding in accordance with the order dt.25/3/2014 passed by the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. IN WITNESSES WHEREOF, both the parties have signed and made their thumb impression on the present Memorandum of Understanding on the day, month and year first written above. Sd/- FIRST PARTY (Smt. Raj Kumari for herself as well as for her minor Children) Sd/- MS RASHMI PANDEY Identify the signature of the Ist Party (S.K.Bhaduri, Advocate Enrl.No.D-292/85 SECOND PARTY SMT. INDRA KUMARI Sd/- Sd/- MS PRATIMA KUMARI Sd/- Shikha Kumari MS PRITI KUMARI AMIT KUMAR Sd/- Identify the signatures of Second Party Sd/- Enr.No.D-246/02 (DAYA NAND SHARMA ) Advocate Normally, in terms of the Rules, the terminal benefits payable to the deceased Government servant are paid in a particular manner and order. Nevertheless, in the peculiar situations like the one in the present case where more than one women have claimed themselves as widow of a deceased Government servant and their children are born out of wedlock with him, it may be unavoidable to release the terminal benefits to those who are entitled to receive the same as per their entitlements. In the present case, when the applicant and respondent No. 3 as well as her wards have arrived at amicable settlement, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 need to acknowledge the same and release the terminal benefits accordingly. Thus OA 3339/2012 is disposed of with direction to respondents to release the terminal benefits payable on account of death of deceased Government servant in accordance with the settlement arrived at in Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.04.2012 reproduced hereinabove.

10. As far as the claim of Ms. Rashmi Pandey, i.e. applicant No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, in the counter reply filed on behalf of official respondents, it is stated that the case of applicant No. 1 had not been placed before the Committee of compassionate appointment and the case is still under consideration, subject to completion of certain formalities/conditions. Nevertheless, after filing of the counter reply, the applicant moved Misc. application no. 663/2014 espousing the candidature of her daughter, namely Ms Rashmi Pandey for compassionate appointment. It is also stated at the Bar that Ms. Rashmi Pandey had already submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground. Nevertheless, it is also the stand taken by the respondents in the reply that Mrs. Indra Kumari, respondent No.3, Mr.Amit, Ms. Pratima and Ms Priti i.e. first wife of the deceased Government servant and her children borne out of the wedlock of her have also staked the claim of being legal heir of the applicant.

11. In view of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the alleged first wife and the applicants (ibid), the plea regarding the existence of the alleged first wife and children of applicant should not come in the way of candidature of Ms Rashmi Pandey for employment on compassionate ground. Also in order dated 1.09.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Tribunal in Subhash Singh S/o late Sugar Singh Vs. Northern Railway through General Manager (ibid), this Tribunal viewed that even the child born out of void marriage needs to be considered as legitimate in terms of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act is entitled to be considered for employment on compassionate ground. In the circumstances, official respondents would consider the candidature of Ms. Rashmi Pandey (applicant no.2) for her appointment on compassionate ground within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. It is made clear that nothing observed hereinabove would have any bearing on the claim of applicant No.1 and respondent No.3 before the Civil Court regarding their status as widow of deceased employee. ( A.K.Bhardwaj) Member (J)