Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Parbati Thapa - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 372 of 2016
Decided On : 19-09-2022
PENSION - Family Pension Entitlement - Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 - Rule 3-A(1)(a)(i), Rule 12, Rule 13(4) - The deceased husband of the petitioner was discharged from service on ground of invalidity due to his participation during the Second World War, suffering complete deafness. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, and directed the respondent Assam Rifles to calculate and make payment within four months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought family pension for her deceased husband, a former Assam Rifles personnel, who was discharged on health grounds after serving during the Second World War. The respondent authorities denied the pension, citing lack of qualifying service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased husband's discharge was due to invalidity caused by his service-related disability, making the petitioner entitled to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, and the applicability of the limitation period for claiming the pension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased husband's disability and premature discharge entitled the petitioner to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, and that the limitation period did not apply due to the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting her entitlement to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, for a period of three years from the date of the petition, and directed the respondent Assam Rifles to make the payment within four months.
JUDGMENT
1. The lis between the parties has seen a chequered history with the central theme being the demand or claim of the petitioner for family pension in the account of her deceased husband, (L) Lal Bahadur Thapa who had expired sometime in the year 2010. The deceased husband admittedly was a personnel of the Assam Rifles who was enrolled as a Rifleman on 15.10.1940 and was discharged on 15.05.1951.
2. The brief factual background of this case is that the deceased husband of the petitioner during his service was deployed to the battlefields during the Second World War and due to heavy bombardment and explosions of bombs in the battlefield, his inner hearing system was seriously damaged for which he was untimely retired from service on 15.05.1951 after rendering 10 years 7 months and 1 day of service. It is also said that during the period of his service he was promoted to the rank of Lance Naik.
3. The deceased husband of the petitioner on being discharged was granted invalid gratuity amounting to Rs. 228.15 per month, but was never granted pensionary benefits.
4. The deceased husband of the petitioner then went back to his native place at Nepal and settled there permanently. However, in the year 2008, the deceased husband of the petitioner was pleasantly surprised to know that a team known as DGAR pension search team came to Nepal to identify and to extend pensionary benefits to ex-servicemen of Assam Rifles and the respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 02.02.2009 has requested the Indian Embassy, Pension Paying Office, Pokhra, Nepal to submit details documents for granting pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner. However, all related papers are with the Gorakhpur Treasury, Upper Pradesh and the said Treasury office was burnt by fire causing loss of all records therein. The deceased husband of the petitioner then died on 21.08.2010.
5. The petitioner then took up the matter with the authorities and when no positive response was forthcoming, having no further option, has filed a writ petition before the Shillong Bench of the Gauhati High Court (as this Court then was) being W.P.(C) No. 419(SH) of 2010 with a prayer for the respondents to pay the gratuity of Rs. 228.15 till that day, together with interest @ 12%. p.a. The High Court while disposing of the said petition, had vide order dated 02.06.2011 directed the respondent authorities to ascertain the relationship of the deceased with the petitioner and then to pay the dues within four months.
6. The respondent authority then filed a Review petition before this Court for review of the order dated 02.06.2011, but the same was rejected on 22.03.2013.
7. The respondent authority has also filed a Misc. Case No. 139 of 2013 in COP No. 33 of 2012 before this Court with a prayer to accept compliance of judgment dated 02.06.2011 as regard the payment of gratuity to the deceased husband of the petitioner, which application is in response to the contempt application filed by the petitioner before this Court and this Court vide order dated 21.11.2013 has accepted the compliance report and has disposed of the Misc. Case No. 139 of 2013, including the contempt matter.
8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 139 of 2013 contending that the same was passed on the assumption that the respondents have complied with the judgment dated 02.06.2011 which was not the case, the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (C) CC No. 8783 of 2014, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2014 and a review petition filed against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2015.
9. The respondents then issued the impugned order No. 50928/AR/UPAO/FS(PG Cell)/2014/254 dated 13.10.2014 (Annexure-16 of the writ petition) informing the petitioner that since her deceased husband was discharged from service on 15.05.1951 having less than 10 years of qualifying service, he is therefore not ent
The main legal point established is that a service-related disability leading to premature discharge entitles the petitioner to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension)....
The legal principle of presumption of death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies, and the death certificate issued in 1977 confirms the death of the missing constable, entitling....
The denial of family pension based on unreasonable deductions of service years violates legal principles of fairness; unmarried dependent daughters are entitled to pension as per amended Rule 143.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the continuing wrongs and recurring wrongs principle to service law disputes, along with the entitlement to disability pension u....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to disability pension for a medical condition arising during service and aggravated by it, as well as the burden of proof on the....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between disability pension and invalid pension under the CCS Pension Rules, emphasizing the eligibility criteria and the impact ....
Pension is a statutory right, and claims for pension cannot be denied based on delay, as it constitutes a recurring cause of action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
