SMT. BHAGWANTI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 1010

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, G.L. OZA

Case summary

Each of these two wtit petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is by the widow of the respective -~ pensioners.

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. Each of these two wtit petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution is by the widow of the respective -~ pensioners. Since family pension under the Rules has not been given to them, they have asked for a mandamus to the respondent-Union of J India to grant such pension in terms of the pension scheme applicable r to the category to which the husbands of the respective petitioners belonged. Petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti is the widow of an ex-Subedar of the Indian Army. Her husband after serving for 18 years retired on 3. 8. 1947 and was given pension. In 1955, his wife died and in 1965 he was married to the petitioner. The Subedar died in September, 1985 in an accident. Petitioner who has two minor children applied for family >pension and the same has not been granted. The petitioner in the connected writ petition is the wife of a retired Railway employee.

Her husband took voluntary retirement at the age of 44 in November, 1979. Petitioner got married to her husband in 1981 and has a daughter born in 1984 out of the said wedlock. Petitioner's husband died in 1986. The petitioner applied for . ·~ family pension but by a letter dated 3rd of August, 1988, her applica· tion was rejected by saying: 'It has not been found possible to include wife of a Government servant who had married after retirement in the definition of 'family' for grant of family pension'. Counter-affidavits. have been filed in both the writ petitions. In the first case, in the· return made by Captain N. K. Vishwakarma from the Office of Records AMC, Lucknow in paragraph A, it has been stated that pension has been refused as petitioner's marriage was after ..... retirement of the Subedar. In the connected matter, the Senior Personnel Manager of the South-Central Railway has placed reliance on the definition of 'family'.

occurring in Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) 8:ules, 1972. As far as relevant, the definition reads thus: SMT. BHAGWANTI v. U. 0. I [MISRA, J. ] 101~ "(b). 'Family' in relation to a Goyemment servant means- (i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant, provided the marriage took place before retirement of the i Government servant. . 8. ·: ....... . (ii) son who has not attained the age of twenty-one years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of thirty years, including such son and daughter adopted legally before retirement but shall not' include son or daughter born after retirement. " The common stand of the Union of India in the two cases, therefore, is that family pension would not be admissible to spouses who get married after the retirement of the Government servant, nor to o children born after such retirement.

The only question for consideration in these two writ petitions therefore, has two facets: (i) whether the spouse-man or woman, as the case may be-married after the retirement of the concerned Government servant can be kept out of the definition so as to deprive him from the benefit of the family pension, and (ii) whether off-springs ... born after retirement are entitled to benefits of such pension. ""- In D. S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983) 2 SCR 165, '1 Constitution Bench of this Court at p. 185 of the Reports observed: " . . . . . . . . . pension is not only compensation for loyal servici: rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader signifi:ance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings.

One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowanc clause (ii) are thus ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot be sustained. The writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Union of India shall have a direction to extend to each of the petitioners in the two writ petitions family pension as admissible under the respective schemes from the date the husband of each of petitioners died. ~ Since these writ petitions were instituted on the basis of letters received by the Court and treated as public interest litigation and were supported by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee through their counsel, there shall be no order as to costs. Y. Lal Petitions allowed. ,.....