NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000408

$~J

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Review Pet.No.21/2022 in

+

LPA 476/2021

UNION OF INDIA

......Appellant

Through :

Mr Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,

CGSC.

KOLLI UDAY KUMARI

......Respondent

Through :

Mr Mahesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface:………………………………………………………………1

Submissions of the Counsels:...……………………………………...6

Reasons and Analysis: ……………………………………………..10

Conclusion:…………………………………………………………19

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:

Preface:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.08.2021

rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 7343/2020. Before the

learned Single Judge, the respondent (who we are told expired after the

impugned judgment was rendered, but before the institution of the appeal)

had assailed the communication dated 12.02.2020 issued by the appellant

Digitally Signed By:PREM

MOHAN CHOUDHARY

Signing Date:20.01.2023

17:01:42

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000408

i.e., Union of India [hereafter referred to as “UOI”], whereby a request for

grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,

1980 [hereafter referred to as “1980 Scheme”] was rejected, based on the

provisions of para 5.2.5 of the guidelines issued by the UOI on 06.08.2014

[hereafter referred to as “2014 Guidelines”].

1.1.

For the sake of convenience, the deceased respondent would be

referred to as Ms Indira Kumari, unless the context requires otherwise.

1.2.

In short, the reason furnished for declining Ms Indira Kumari’s

request for grant of pension was that a “widowed/divorced daughter” was

not eligible for pension under the 1980 Scheme.

2. The learned Single Judge was not impressed with this reasoning as,

according to him, the issue was no longer res integra in view of the

judgement delivered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court in Khajani Devi vs. Union of India and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine

P&H 15867.

2.1

The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that not only the

Special Leave Petition (SLP), but also a review petition preferred by UOI,

against the said judgement, was dismissed on 27.09.2019 and 19.01.2021,

respectively.

2.2.

Besides this, it is important to note that Khajani Deviconcerned the

case of a divorced daughter. In the said case, the Division Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court saw no good reason to differentiate between

an “unmarried” daughter, who, admittedly, is an eligible beneficiary under

the 1980 Scheme and a “divorced daughter”.

3. Besides in Khajani Devi’s case, the learned Single Judge also took

note of the judgments rendered by two Single Judges of the Punjab and

Digitally Signed By:PREM

MOHAN CHOUDHARY

Signing Date:20.01.2023

17:01:42

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023/DHC/000408

Haryana High Court and the Calcutta High Court.

3.1.

The learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court via the

judgment dated 02.05.2019, passed in C.W.P. No.8008 of 2017, titled Smt.

Kamlesh vs Union of India and Anr.followed the Division Bench’s

judgment rendered in Khajani Devi’s case and extended the benefit to a

widowed daughter.

3.2.

Insofar as the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court is

concerned, in his judgment, rendered in Sonali Hatua Giri vs. Union of

India and Ors., 2021 SCC Online Cal 1644, para 5.2.5 of the 2014

Guidelines was declared ultra vires; on the ground that it violated Article 14

of the Constitution. This judgment had declared that the expression

“unmarried” in para 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines would include

widowed/divorced daughters, provided they fulfilled the other condition i.e.,

of not having any independent source of income.

4. It must also be stated that the learned Single Judge in the impugned

judge