Judgment

DESAI, J.:- Promise of socio-economic justice depicted in rosy language in Arts. 38, 39 and 41 is being translated into a real action-oriented programme by the stand taken by the Union of India and the Ministry of Finance in this group of petitions and application for special leave which deserves approbation and commendation. Amongst the neglected sections of the society women form a bulk. In that bigger class widows are possibly the worst sufferers both socially and economically. To them, a helping hand is extended, for providing succour sofely needed by the two statements made in the Court by Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and the Ministry of Finance. Throughout the course of hearing; Mr. B. Dutta adopted a positive, constructive and helpful attitude and he is equally entitled to our appreciation.

2. As a sequel to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India. (1983) 2 SCR 165 a number of petitions came to be filed by persons claiming to be entitled to the socially beneficent approach of the Court. One such group comprised widows of erstwhile Government servants who are not in. receipt of family pension.

3. Family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950. When a Government servant dies in harness or soon after retirement, in the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation. Traditionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain gainful employment. She suffered the most inasmuch as she was deprived of the companionship of the husband and also became economically orphaned As a measure of socio-economic justice family pension scheme was devised to help the widows tie over the crisis and till the minor children attain majority to extend them some succour. This appeared to be the underlying motivation in devising the family pension scheme. It was liberatised from time to time. The liberalisation was however subject to the condition that the Government servant had in his lifetime agreed that he shall make. a contribution of an amount equal to two months emoluments or Rs. 5,000/- whichever is less out of the death-cum-retirement gratuity. Those Government servants who did not accept this condition were deemed the benefit of family pension scheme.

4. Focussing on the liberalisation that was introduced in 1964 it transpires that the widow and the minor children of those Government servants who died prior to 1964 were not eligible for the benefit of liberalised scheme. The other class which was left out of the liberalisation scheme was those Government servants who specifically opted out of the family pension scheme 1964. The resultant situation was that since Jan. 1, 1964 there were in force two parallel schemes in operation namely (a) a pre-liberalisation scheme which continued to be in force for those who retired prior to 1-1-1964 or those who did not contribute out of the death-cum-retirement gratuity, roughly styled as non-contributory scheme. The other was the contributory scheme. Both these schemes are incorporated in Rules 54 and 55 respectively of the Civil Services Pension Rules 1972.

5. The Union of India in its onward march or ushering in socio-economic justice in the form of social security further took a bold and imaginative step on Sept. 22, 1977 by which the pre-condition of contribution of two months emolument out of death-cum-retirement gratuity was done away with. Recognising the need for such a beneficial change, the memorandum introducing the 1977 liberalisation recorded the decision of the Union of India as under :-

"The staff side has suggested in the National Council of the JCN that this family pension is a social security measure and the employee should not be called upon to contribute towards the scheme. The matter has been examined in the light of the recommendations of the Natio