Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suman vs Uinion Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:8043) on 10 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:8043]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8732/2023
Suman W/o Late Manjeet Singh D/o Govind Ram, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Dhayava, Tehsil Ladnun District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home,
Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Ssb, 5-6, Vivekanand Marg, East Block,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
3. Assistant Director (East), S.S.B. Force Headquarter, New
Delhi.
4. Commandant, Second Command, 12th Battalion, SSB,
Kishanganj (Bihar).
5. Personnel Officer (Admn.), Regional Headquarter, S.S.B.
Ranidanga (Bihar).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary with
Mr. S.S. Gour
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Sharma
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/02/2025
1. By way of the present writ petition preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the
communications dated 07.06.2016, 11.06.2016, 15.07.2017 and
21.03.2018, whereby the respondents have asked the petitioner
to furnish a succession certificate, if she wants to get family
pension in lieu of services, which her husband-Late Shri Manjeet
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (2 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased government servant')
had rendered with Union of India.
2. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be
directed to give compassionate appointment to her, as per criteria
prescribed.
3. The needful facts are that petitioner's husband-Manjeet
Singh was appointed as Constable (GD) on 07.07.2012. At the
time of his appointment he was a bachelor, hence, while
submitting his documents including nomination for pension etc.,
he nominated his mother (Santosh Devi) to receive pensionary
benefits and other rights flowing from his employment.
4. Manjeet Singh, then married to the petitioner on 14.01.2013
and within less than two years, he passed away in a road accident
on 14.02.2015.
5. Since, he had nominated his mother, the terminal benefits
were paid to her and Pension Payment Order (PPO) was also
issued in her name on 30.03.2015.
6. As per the facts asserted, the petitioner had lodged an FIR
(FIR No. 10/2016) alleging offences under sections 498-A, 406,
323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code.
7. In order to get the said FIR quashed, a criminal misc.
petition (being Criminal Misc. Petition No.900/2016) came to be
filed before this Court, which came to be disposed of on
27.10.2017 in terms of the compromise dated 07.05.2016, which
the petitioner had entered into with her father-in-law and mother-
in-law.
8. The relevant part of the compromise reads thus:-
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (3 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
"buds lkFk gh f}rh; i{kdkj }kjk Lo- Jh euthr flag ds uke ls tks
isa"ku larks"k nsoh ds uke vk jgh gS mls izFke i{kdkj ds uke djokus ds
fy, larkss"k nsoh dh ,u-vks-lh ,oa vU; nLrkost ij gLrk{kj djus ds
fy, rS;kj jgsxh] o foHkkx esa nLrkosth rkSj ij gj izdkj dh Lohd`fr
iznku djus gsrq Hkh ikcan jgsxh blds ckotwn Hkh foHkkxh; Lrj ij izFke
i{kdkj lqeu ds i{k esa foHkkx }kjk isa"ku tkjh ugha dh tkrh gS rks
mldh tokcnkjh f}rh; i{kdkj dh ugha jgsxhA"
9. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application dated
07.10.2016 and requested the Director General of Border Security
Force for payment of family pension to her. Alongwith the
application, the petitioner had produced various documents
including certified copy of the claim petition filed in Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, copy of Driving License, copy of Aadhar Card and
copy of invitation card of the wedding and an affidavit and
certificate from the Sarpanch evincing proof of her marriage with
the deceased government employee.
10. Instead of changing the beneficiary of the family pension,
the respondents sent a communication dated 07.06.2016 and
asked the petitioner to produce a succession certificate to
establish the factum of her marriage. The said communication was
followed by another communications dated 11.06.2016,
15.07.2017 and 21.03.2018.
11. At the insistence of the respondents, the petitioner even
moved an application dated 08.07.2016 for the purpose of getting
family pension and for issuance of succession certificate (under
section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act of 1925')).
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (4 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
12. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deedwana,
however, rejected petitioner's application filed under section 372
of the Act of 1925 by way of order dated 08.05.2023 inter-alia
holding that no succession certificate can be issued for grant of
family pension and compassionate appointment, while relying
upon certain judgments.
13. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the respondents cannot insist upon furnishing of succession
certificate, as the family pension is neither a debt nor a security as
prescribed under section 370(2) of the Act of 1925. He relied upon
the judgment of this Court dated 03.07.2013 rendered in the case
of Smt. Savitri Devi & Anr. vs. District & Session Judge,
Hanumangarh (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7121/2010).
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact that the
petitioner had married the deceased government servant is not in
dispute and being his legally wedded wife, it is her first right to
get the family pension. He prayed that the respondents be
directed to commence payment of family pension to her.
15. The respondents have filed a reply inter-alia asserting that
the documents in the service record which the deceased
government servant had filed depicted Santosh Devi (mother-in-
law of the petitioner) as his nominee to get family pension and
therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to go as per
the nomination made by the deceased government servant. The
respondents have also averred that the Ration Card too did not
contain petitioner's name.
16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (5 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
17. On analysis of factual matrix, it is clear that the petitioner's
husband was appointed as Constable (GD) on 07.07.2012,
whereafter his marriage is claimed to be solemnized with the
petitioner on 14.01.2013, whereafter he passed away on
14.02.2015. Since, the petitioner's husband had passed away
within two years of her marriage, that too at a very young age, it
is quite natural that he would not think of changing the
endorsement/nomination qua family pension and other dues,
which he had furnished when appointed on the post of Constable
(GD), while he was a bachelor.
18. It is to be noted that petitioner's mother-in-law and father-
in-law being mother and father of the deceased government
servant had entered into a compromise with the petitioner on
07.05.2016 and clearly agreed that the family pension shall be
paid to the petitioner and for such purpose, if any document/NOC
is required to be signed by them, they would do the needful.
19. It is to be noted that the petitioner had moved an
application for payment of family pension while enclosing the
relevant documents evincing that she had married the deceased
government servant and her mother-in-law and father-in-law had
no objection, if the family pension is paid to her. The petitioner
had tried to obtain the succession certificate, but her application
came to be rejected vide order dated 08.05.2023.
20. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has produced a copy of the Voter Identity Card issued
on 28.03.2014, which shows the petitioner to be wife of Manjeet
Singh (deceased government servant). Copy of the petitioner's
Voter Identity Card is taken on record. It is pertinent to note that
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (6 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
the said Voter Identity Card was issued before the government
servant had passed away.
21. On Court's query, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly
submitted that looking to the rural background and unawareness,
no marriage certificate was obtained. He nevertheless submitted
that there are various evidences including the wedding invitation
card etc. which show that the petitioner had married the deceased
government servant.
22. The respondents' insistence for furnishing of succession
certificate cannot be countenanced in light of judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra). The relevant part
thereof is reproduced hereunder:
"The upshot of the above discussion is that the
writ petition of the petitioners is allowed and the
impugned orders dated 22.03.2001 (Annex.7) and
order dated 15.04.2010 (Annex.13) are quashed and
set aside and the respondent is directed to forward
the family pension case of the first petitioner to the
competent authority by treating fictional death of
Shri Ramesh Singh w.e.f. 17th November, 2007 and
the competent authority i.e., Pension Department is
expected to process the papers for grant of family
pension with utmost expediency for release of family
pension to the first petitioner. The respondent must
ensure that the arrears of family pension w.e.f. 17th
November, 2007 be paid to the first petitioner. This
entire exercise is to be completed within three
months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order. The respondent is also directed to
release other retiral benefits to the first petitioner
within the said stipulated period. A further direction
is also issued to the respondent to consider afresh
the application of the second petitioner for grant of
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (7 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
appointment on compassionate grounds strictly in
accordance with Rules of 1996 within three months
from the date of production of this order, and if he is
found suitable, necessary orders in this behalf be
issued forthwith.
While considering the application of the second
petitioner, the respondent shall take into account the
exceptional circumstances of the instant case
sympathetically with objectivity for extending the
benefit of proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the
Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996, if occasion
so arises."
23. Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972') clearly provides
that in case of death of a government servant, his widow or
widower shall be entitled to get family pension and it is only in
case when the deceased government servant is not survived by a
widow or an eligible child that the parents of the deceased
government servant can avail the family pension.
24. It is, therefore, clear that the right to claim and get the
family pension accrues to the parents only in absence of spouse
and an eligible child of the deceased government servant.
25. The respondents have started paying the family pension to
the mother (Santosh Devi) of the deceased government servant
simply because in the service record, the deceased government
servant had nominated her.
26. Given that Manjeet Singh had passed away within two years
of his marriage, it was quite natural that it did not occur to him to
get the nomination changed in his wife's name.
27. According to this Court, even if because of family distress or
matrimonial discord, the petitioner's husband had chosen not to
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (8 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
nominate or endorse the name of the petitioner on the papers so
that his family can get the family pension but the fact remains
that the petitioner's matrimony continued until Manjeet Singh
passed away.
28. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has pointed out that the payment of pension to Santosh
Devi (petitioner's mother-in-law) had been stopped way back in
2016 on the basis of written request made by said Santosh Devi.
It is, therefore, clear that the respondents are not paying the
family pension to the petitioner, as she has failed to produce the
succession certificate.
29. On perusal of the Voter Identity Card, which was issued on
28.03.2014, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
dated 30.04.2019, which was passed in presence of mother and
father of the deceased government servant and the certificate
issued by the Sarpanch, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension, as it is her first
right to claim the same.
30. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
31. The respondents are directed to initiate payment of family
pension to the petitioner within a period of two months from the
date of placing a certified copy of the order instant.
32. The respondents shall also pay the arrears of family pension
from the date the same was stopped (to Santosh Devi) until the
commencement of payment to the petitioner. The arrears be
cleared within a period of three months from today.
33. With regard to the prayer made by the petitioner for giving
compassionate appointment, she will be free to move an
[2025:RJ-JD:8043] (9 of 9) [CW-8732/2023]
appropriate representation before the concerned authorities of the
respondent department.
34. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
281-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
