Children born from the 2nd widow are entitled to family pension as per Rule 97 of Pension Regulation for the Army.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

Petitioner through the medium of petition-in-hand is seeking quashment of PPO No. F/BC/0010/2010 (Army), dated 16.08.2010 whereby 50% pension has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 5 w.e.f. 01.08.2010, and PPO No. F/BC/CORR/0361/2010, dated 16.08.2010, whereby the Special Family Pension of the petitioner has been reduced to 50%. She further seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to pay her full special family pension as has been sanctioned vide PPO No. F/BC/392/96.

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she being the legally wedded wife of deceased Hav. Saifullah and being nominee appointed by the deceased for receiving all pensionary and other benefits is entitled to receive family pension, which has become payable due to death of Hav. Saifullah while performing military service. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the PPO issued by the Army Authority whereby 50% of the pension has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 5 w.e.f. 01.08.2010 on the plea that respondent No. 5 was son of 2nd wife of deceased Hav. Saifullah, namely, Rehana Begum (since died). The plea of the petitioner is that in terms of Pension Regulation governing grant of family pension, son of 2nd widow is not entitled to family pension, as such, grant of 50% family pension in favour of respondent No. 5 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Pension Regulation. It is further contended that rules/regulations for grant of family pension and special family pension are different. Rule 97 of Pension Regulation for the Army is applicable to the commissioned officers and not the army personnel of the rank of Havaldar. It is also contended that even deceased Saifullah did not make any mention of Mst. Rehana Begum or his son respondent No. 5 in the army record or in the nominee column. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned PPO on the ground that the same has been issued without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He further contends that there is no justification for reduction of family pension to 50% and sanction of remaining 50% in favour respondent No. 5.

3. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed their reply and have inter-alia disclosed that one Mst. Rehana Begum served a legal notice dated 11.08.1995 claiming therein that she had married with late Hav. Saif Ullah Khan in August, 1991 and out of said wedlock one child, i.e., respondent No. 5 was born. She further alleged that Saif Ullah Khan had already divorced petitioner 5 years back. With a view to verify the assertion made by Mst. Rehana Begum claiming to be wife of late Hav. Saif Ullah, the matter was referred to Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, Doda and Sr. SSP, HQ, Doda. SSP, Doda. They appear to have confirmed vide letter dated 27.02.1996 that husband of the petitioner during subsistence of first marriage had also married one Mst. Rehana Begum and that both were alive and had children. It is further submitted by respondents that as per their records deceased Hav. Saifullah had nominated petitioner for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but as per the existing rules, children born from the 2nd widow are also eligible for family pension. Pursuant to verification and relying upon relevant rules and regulations, respondent No. 5 was granted 50% of the pension of late Saif Ullah Khan w.e.f 01.08.2010 to 13.09.2017 or till marriage or earning by respondent No. 5, whichever is earlier, and after that petitioner shall be eligible for full pension of her husband, which according to the official respondents was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 14.10.2010 Official Respondents in their objections have also relied upon Rule 97 of Pension Regulation for the Army, which inter alia provides that the children born out of the wedlock of 2nd wife are eligible for grant of division of family pension till 25 years of age or marriage whichever is earlier As per existing Rules, 50% share of family pension in favour of respondent No.