The court ruled that denying family pension to a mother post-father's death under existing rules is discriminatory and unconstitutional, mandating equitable treatment in pension laws.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Beck, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass order/direction holding that the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam 1965 is ultra vires qua the discrimination it makes to the mother of the deceased police personnel in respect of grant of extraordinary family Pension after the death of the father of the deceased.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the impugned orders dated 13-12-2021 (ANNEXURE-P/2) and 20-12-2021 (ANNEXURE-P/3)

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly pass order in nature of mandamus to the respondent State and concerned authorities directing them to reform the discriminatory law against the mother of the deceased police personnel vis a vis the mother of non-police government employees.

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to grant family pension to the petitioner along with arrears and interest at the existing Bank interest rates.

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order/direction granting any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the mother of Late Ignatius Lakra who was a Police Constable (Constable No. 450) in the 10 Battalion of Chhattisgarh Armed Force, at Surajpur. On 11.12.2002 petitioner's son was martyred as a result of encounter between Police Force and Naxals, at a young age of 21 years and left behind his father Lobin Lakra, his mother i.e. the petitioner and an elder brother and two sisters. Lobin Lakra, the father of martyr Ignatius Lakra was receiving family pension after the death of his son. But Lobin Lakra also expired on 23-08-2020. Before his death, Lobin Lakra was receiving pension from Treasury Office, District-Jashpur through the State Bank of India, Branch- Kunkuri.

4. According to Mr. Beck, learned counsel for the petitioner, after the death of Lobin Lakra, the petitioner, who is the mother of martyr Ignatius Lakra is eligible to receive the family pension. The petitioner informed the authorities about the death of Lobin Lakra and requested that the family pension be given to her. On 27.11.2020, respondent No. 2 ie. the Commandant, 10^th Battalion, CGAP, Surajpur sent a letter to respondent No. 5 i.e. the Treasury Officer, District Jashpur informing about the death of Lobin Lakra and asked the Treasury officer to take necessary steps for disbursement of pension to the petitioner. When the petitioner contacted the office of respondent No. 5, she was informed that the necessary direction has to come from respondent No. 4-the Treasury Officer, Surguja, Ambikapur. Therefore on 21.01.2021 the petitioner again sent a representation with regard to grant of pension to the Joint Treasury Officer, Ambikapur and a copy to the Commandant, 10th Battalion, CGAF, Surajpur. Subsequently the petitioner received a letter dated 06.02.2021 issued by the respondent No. 4, the Treasury Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja stating that the Pension Payment Order Account (P.P.O. Account) does not mention the name of the petitioner as nominee and advised the petitioner to contact the office of the respondent No. 2, the Commandant, 10th Battalion, CGAF, Surajpur in this regard. The petitioner contacted the office of Commandant, 10th Battalion, CGAF, Surajpur with regard to her pension and she was informed that the office has already sent the concerned information and documents to the office of Treasury Officer, Ambikapur District- Surguja.

5. Mr. Beck submits that the petitioner is an old lady and she was being made to run from pillar to post to receive rightful pe