SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 1646

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jivanti Devi - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13344 of 2015 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1224 of 2015
Decided On : 02-11-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Mr. S.K. Sarkar, Mr. Abinas Kumar, Mr. Bal Krishan Sharma, Ms. Madhvi Sharma, Advocates.

The court has the discretion to award a lumpsum payment instead of family pension based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:

Family Pension - Central Reserve Police Force - Lumpsum Payment

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, whose son was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force and could not render his full service due to ailment, was not being paid any family pension.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed a lumpsum payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent instead of considering the case for family pension, considering the ailment suffered by the son and the service rendered by him.

Issues: Non-payment of family pension to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the service rendered by the respondent's son, the court decided to award a lumpsum payment instead of family pension.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction to make a lumpsum payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to the respondent within two months.

JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. By virtue of the impugned judgement, the High Court has directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent, whose son was a member of the Central Reserve Police Force and who could not render his full service for the entire term so as to avail pension. The respondent-mother is not being paid any amount by way of family pension.

4. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case and more particularly upon considering the ailment suffered by the son of the respondent and service rendered by him, we direct that instead of considering the case of the respondent for family pension, the respondent be paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs) in lumpsum, without payment of any family pension.

5. An account payee cheque, in the name of the respondent shall be given to the respondent within two months from today.

6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top