JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— Each of these two writ petitions under Art. 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 India to grant such pension in terms of the pension scheme applicable to the category to which the husbands of the respective petitioners belonged.

2. Petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti is the widow of an ex-Subhedar 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 Sept., 1985 in an accident. Petitioner who has two minor children applied for family pension and the same has not been granted.

3. 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 Nov., 1979. Petitioner got married to her husband in 1981 and has a daughter born in 1984 out of the said wedlock. Petitioners husband died in 1986. The petitioner applied for family pension but by a letter dated 3rd of August, 1988, her application 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.

4. 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 petitioners 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 R. 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. As far as relevant, the definition reads thus :

"(b) Family in relation to a Government 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 Government servant;

..........................

(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."

5. 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 children born after such retirement.

6. 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.

7. In D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 2 SCR 165, a Constitution Bench of this Court at p. 185 (of SCR) of the Reports observed :

"............ pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, 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 allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is ea