Smt. Ram Kauri Devi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 199 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner is the mother of the deceased constable Subhash Chander, who died while serving in the forward area of Western Tripura. It is not in dispute that the CRPF agreed to grant family pension to the petitioner's daughter in law Smt. Suvita Devi, widow of petitioner's deceased son Subhash Chander. However, before the said widow Smt. Suvita Devi could receive any payment on account of family pension, she died. The petitioner as a dependent parent thereafter made a claim for family pension based on the Office Memorandum of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel dated 3rd February, 2000, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

I. Family Pension -- for categories B and C

...

(2) In case where the widow dies or remarries, the children shall be paid family pension at the rates mentioned at (a) or (b) above, as applicable, and the same rate shall also apply to fatherless/motherless children. In both cases, family pension shall be paid to children for the period during which they would have been eligible for family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules. Dependent parents/brothers /sisters etc. shall be paid family pension one-half the rate applicable to widows/fatherless or motherless children.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid sub-para (2) which provides for half the rate of payment payable to widows available to the dependent parents. The petitioner has claimed the family pension on the ground that she is a dependent parent. This claim of the petitioner has been denied by the respondent while inter alia taking a plea based upon the letter dated 14th January, 2003, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

We have already authorised Family pension to his wife vide our SSA dated 28.1.99. As per Rule 54 of CCS (P) Rules, 1972 after the death of the wife, there is no such Rule available in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 that the mother will receive the dependent Family Pension after death of widow. If there is any doubt in this case you may please obtain necessary orders in relaxation of existing rule through your Admn. Authorities.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the above letter to sustain the plea of the respondent that the mother of the deceased could not claim any family pension once it was sanctioned to the widow.

5. We are unable to accept the plea of the respondent that the mother of the deceased could not claim any family pension once it was sanctioned to the widow. The plea of the respondent is not tenable because (a) The office Memorandum dated 3rd February, 2000 squarely applies to the facts of the present case; (b) the family pension is a beneficial provision and it should be liberally construed; (c) The learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to show any particular provision in the Rules and Regulations to show why the office memorandum dated 3rd February, 2000 issued by the Government of India is not applicable; and (d) In our view the petitioner is a dependent parent of deceased soldier and is entitled to payment of one-half the rate which would have been payable to the widow of the deceased Subhash Chandra.

6. The very fact that the payment to the dependent parent is to be at half the widow clearly visualizes a situation where the payment of amount payable to a widow ceases and a dependent parent then gets entitled to half such payment.

7. It was also not understood what prejudice would be caused to the respondent by granting family pension to the petitioner, who is the dependent mother of the deceased soldier, particularly when the widow had not received any family pension. In fact the said CCS (Pension) Rules do not rule out such a payment. In any case, we are not satisfied that merely because the family pension was sanctioned in favor of the widow, upon the widow's demise, the dependent parent would not be entitled to claim family pension merely on the plea that the CCS (Pension) Rules did not permit such a payment. In fact the said CCS (Pension) Rules do not rule out such a payment. In our view, such a plea cannot be a valid answer to the reliance on the office memorandum dated 3rd February, 2000 issued by the Government of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India, held as under:-

13. It is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule.

8. The object of the memorandum is to provide sustenance to the dependent members of the family of the deceased and such an object would be totally frustrated by the untenable stand adopted by the respondents. We are thus of the view that the office memorandum dated 3rd February, 2000 applies to the facts of the present case and being a beneficial provision has to be construed liberally as per the above position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and does not bar a sanction of family pension to the dependent parent if payment is not being made to the widow. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed.

9. The petitioner shall be paid all arrears payable at the rate of one-half payable to the widow, on or before 1st April, 2006 and shall be continued to be paid her family pension month to month thereafter. The claim of the petitioner which we found to be rightful, was rejected arbitrarily and unreasonably by the respondent in March, 2003, without any justification. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a., on the arrears from April, 2003, until the date of payment payable also on or before 1st April, 2006. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.

10. The writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.