Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Sukhvinder Kaur, JJ.
Smt. Sukhjeet Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-14372-2016
Decided On : 12-01-2023
Mr.R.N. Ojha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that remarriage of a widow with her deceased husband's brother, while continuing to support other dependents, entitles her to extraordinary pension under Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, irrespective of the cause of her husband's death.
Headnote:
Family Pension - Remarriage - CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972, Rule 219 of Army Pension Regulations, 1961, Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's family pension was stopped due to her remarriage with the younger brother of her deceased husband. She filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting her claim for family pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to restoration of family pension under Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, disregarding the cause of her first husband's death not being attributable to Government service. The court also found that the respondents were barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from raising the plea of laches.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the petitioner for family pension after remarriage and the applicability of Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the problems faced by widows in both situations (death attributable to or aggravated by service and death in service) are identical, and thus, the distinction in the cause of death should not result in a difference in the value of the pension. The court also held that the respondents were barred by the principle of constructive res judicata from raising the plea of laches.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed the restoration of the petitioner's family pension with interest and payment of arrears under Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.
JUDGMENT
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. (Oral) - This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.29.04.2016 (P8) passed by respondent No.4 [Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal')] rejecting the claim for family pension made by the petitioner.
One Sh.Mohinder Singh initially enrolled in the Indian Air Force as a Combatant Member on 04.01.1964.
2. On 21.11.1971, he was discharged from services on medical grounds and was granted disability pension @ 20% for life.
Thereafter, Sh. Mohinder Singh rejoined the Air Force Service as a Civilian Employee.
3. Subsequent thereto, on 26.06.1974, the petitioner got married to him. On 27.03.1975, Sh. Mohinder Singh unfortunately expired while in service. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 05.04.1975.
Vide Annexure P1, the petitioner was sanctioned family pension on 17.07.1976.
4. In the meantime in June, 1975, she had remarried the younger brother of Sh. Mohinder Singh in what is called Chadar Chuni ceremony.
5. On coming to know of the same, in April 1982, the family pension sanctioned to the petitioner was stopped by the respondents on the ground that she had remarried the younger brother of the deceased husband Sh. Mohinder Singh.
6. The petitioner then made certain representations to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 claiming restoration of the family pension.
7. On 06.01.2011, the petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench by filing OA No. 14 of 2011 for restoration of the family pension.
8. But the Armed Forces Tribunal did not entertain the same and granted her liberty on 19.03.2014 to approach the appropriate forum for restoration of the same by holding that the Armed Forces Tribunal had no jurisdiction since the deceased-husband was in civilian service.
9. Petitioner then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (Respondent No.4) by filing OA-060/00372/2014 claiming restoration of the family pension and also arrears.
10. On 10.04.2015, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh disposed of the said OA holding that the pension released to the petitioner after the death of her husband could not be discontinued as per the Rules and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to reconsider the matter in the light of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 219 of Army Pension Regulations, 1961 and Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.
Such consideration was directed to be made within 3 months.
11. Thereafter, a speaking order was passed by respondent No.3 on 16.12.2015 giving the following reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for restoration of the family pension:-
(a) The Pension related aspects of the Central Govt. Employees are governed by CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972. The criteria and procedures for grant of family pension is well defined under Rule-54 of ibid Rules. It has been clearly stipulated in Sub-Rule 6(1) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972, that 'widow will be eligible for receipt of family pension only upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier'. However, consequent to 6th CPC, childless widows are also made entitled to receive family pension even after their re-marriage subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, but in your case the said provision is not applicable as you have one girl child from your first wedlock;
(b) As regards CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rule, it is pertinent to mention here that these rules are applicable in cases of regulation of pension due to death or disability of Govt. servant, which is attributable to Govt Service. However, in your case the said provision is not applicable as you were initially sanctioned normal family pension under Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, you are not eligible for grant of family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules;
(c) As regards applicability of Rule 219 of Army Pension Regulations, 1961, it is clarified that the same apply only in cases wh
