Delhi High Court
Smt. Rupa Rani vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 October, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.10.2024
+ W.P.(C) 8407/2022
SMT. RUPA RANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Randhir Singh Kalkal, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC with
Mr. O.P. Verma, Adv.
SI Prahlad, CISF.
SI Shiv Kumar CT/GD Mohit
Kumar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for
a direction to the respondents to restore the family pension of the
petitioner after stopping the pension being granted to her daughter.
The petitioner also challenges the Order dated 18.11.2021 passed by
respondents informing her that as per the rules, she is not eligible for
grant of family pension after remarriage.
Case of the petitioner
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the unfortunate demise of
her husband on 26.08.2001, who was enrolled in the Central Industrial
Security Force (in short, 'CISF'), the petitioner was granted family
pension vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) No.232830200219 dated
07.02.2002 w.e.f. 27.08.2001. She remarried on 13.02.2006 and
thereafter, the family pension was stopped and transferred in the name
of her daughter from the first husband.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.07.2016
seeking restoration of her family pension. Having received no
response to the same, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated
15.10.2016 to the respondent. In reply to her legal notice, she was
informed that as per the O.M. of Government of India, Department of
Pension & Pensioners Welfare F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated
02.09.2008, only a childless widow of a deceased Government
employee is entitled to receive family pension after her remarriage.
The petitioner was informed that as she had a daughter from her
earlier marriage, she was not eligible for the grant of the family
pension.
4. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner made another representation
dated 24.12.2020 to the respondents. The respondents again by the
Impugned Order dated 18.11.2021 informed the petitioner that she
was not eligible for the grant of the family pension.
5. Aggrieved of the above, the petitioner has filed the present
petition claiming the above mentioned relief.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
Order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, 'CAT') in Original
Application (in short, 'OA') No. 2822/2016 titled Renu Gupta
(Pension Claimant) vs. Union of India & Ors., submits that in the
said case as well, the petitioner therein had remarried the brother of
her late husband and had a son; her family pension was stopped and
the same was granted to the son; the petitioner therein had approached
the learned CAT seeking restoration of her family pension; and the
learned CAT, vide the above said Order, after placing reliance on the
OM dated 01.04.2011 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance
& Pensions bearing No. 1/4/2011-P&PW(E), granted relief to the
petitioner therein holding that she is entitled for the family pension
under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, 'CCS
(Pension) Rules') and that there is no legal bar in transferring the
pension in her name. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is therefore, entitled to the family pension even
though he has a daughter from her first marriage and has remarried.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, by
placing reliance on Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules submits,
that in terms thereof, family pension is payable in case of a widow or
widower, up to the date of death or remarriage. He submits that the
proviso to the said Rule states that in case of a childless widow, if her
income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum
family pension and the dearness relief admissible thereon, only then
the family pension shall continue to be payable to her.
8. He submits that the order passed by the learned CAT in Renu
Gupta (supra) cannot assist the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as it
appears that the son mentioned therein was from the second husband
of the petitioner therein and not from the deceased husband.
Analysis and findings
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
10. Rule 54(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules so far as is relevant to
the present petition, reads as under:
"(6) The period for which family pension is
payable shall be as follows:-
(i) subject to first proviso, in the case of a
widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-
marriage, whichever is earlier;
xxxxx
Provided that family pension shall continue to be
payable to a childless widow on re-marriage, if
her income from all other sources is less than
the amount of minimum family pension under
sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief
admissible thereon"
11. The above rule clearly provides that family pension is payable
in case of a widow up to the date of her death or remarriage. The
proviso, however, states that a family pension shall continue to be
given to a "childless widow on re-marriage" if her income from all
other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension
under sub-rule (2) of the said Rule and the dearness relief admissible
thereon.
12. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had been blessed
with a daughter from her deceased husband, who was the employee
with the CISF. In terms of Rule 54(6)(i) of the CCS(Pension) Rules
read with its proviso, the petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to
receive family pension upon her remarriage.
13. The OM dated 01.04.2011 is also applicable only to a "childless
widow". It has also been quoted in the Judgment of Renu Gupta
(supra), and we reproduce the same as under:
""4. The issue has been examined in this
Department in consultation with Department
of Expenditure. It is hereby clarified that the
childless widow of a deceased Central
Government employee who had expired before
1.1.2006, shall be eligible for family pension
in the light of 6th CPC's recommendations
irrespective of the fact that the remarriage of
the widow had taken place prior to/on or after
1.1.2006. The financial benefits in such cases,
however, will accrue from 1.1.2006. This,
however, would be subject to the fulfilment of
certain conditions laid down therein, including
the income criterion that the income of the
widow from all sources does not become equal
to or higher than the minimum prescribed for
family pension in the Central Government."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Therefore, neither under Rule 54(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules nor
under the OM 01.04.2011, the petitioner is entitled to receive family
pension post her remarriage.
15. From the Judgment of the learned CAT in Renu Gupta (supra),
it cannot be ascertained if the son of the petitioner therein was from
her first marriage or from the second marriage. In any case, in view of
Rule 54(6) of CCS (Pension) Rules and the OM dated 01.04.2011, the
petitioner herein cannot be granted the relief claimed.
16. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition and the
same is dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
OCTOBER 25, 2024/ab/sk/VS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
