Union of India v. Renu Gupta

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 2822/2016. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application preferred by the respondent by directing the petitioner to restore the Family Pension of her late husband, Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta, which was being paid to her till 2002, and was thereafter being paid to her son, who has now attained majority.

2. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has, without examining the provisions of Rule 54 (6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 proceeded to allow the respondent’s claim. He submits that since the respondent already had a son when her husband, Late. Sh. Pawan Kumar Gupta expired, she would fall in the category of ‘widow who has a child’. According to sub clause (i) of Rule 54 (6), she was not entitled to claim family pension once she remarried, which he submits is an admitted position, and therefore, at her request, the family pension was being paid to her son from 2002. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in placing reliance on the O.M. dated 01.04.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, which is not at all applicable to persons like the respondent, who fall in the category of widow with a child. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to support the impugned order by contending that the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of the respondent by relying on the O.M. dated 01.04.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions. By drawing our attention to para 4 of the said OM, he submits that it has been clarified that a childless widow of a deceased central government employee, who had expired before 01.01.2006, would also be eligible for family pension irrespective of the fact as to whether the marriage had taken place on or after 01.01.2006. He, therefore, contends that the respondent, having re-married before 01.01.2006, would also be eligible to receive family pension. The clause, he submits, has to be read holistically and cannot exclude widows like the respondent merely because they have a child. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, justified in extending to the respondent the benefits of this clarification issued on 01.04.2011, which was meant to protect the rights of those widows like the respondent, who had re-married before 01.01.2006.

4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we may begin by noting Rule 54 (6) (i) to (v) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, along with the first proviso thereto, which deals with the period for which family pension is payable and also specifies the family members who are entitled to receive family pension. The same 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;

(ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;

(iii) subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier;

(iv) subject to sub-rule (10-A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before the death of the Government servant, for life;

(v) Subject to sub-rule 10(B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the Government Servant immediately before the death of Government servant, for life: Provide 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:...”

5. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, especially sub clause (i) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 54, it is evident that except as stated in the first proviso, a widow or widower will be entitled to receive family pension only upto the date of his/her death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier. The respondent, who admittedly has been blessed with a son, would therefore, be barred under Rule 54(6) (i) from receiving family pension after her re-marriage. She is not even covered under the first proviso which is applicable only to childless widows.

6. We may now note the relevant extracts of the impugned order, which read as under:

7. From the aforesaid findings in the impugned order, we find that the learned Tribunal has allowed the respondent’s claim by relying on para 4 of the O.M. dated 01.04.2011. We, may, therefore, note herein below, this para of the O.M as well.