$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 20.01.2023 Reserved on: 09.09.2022 Review Pet.No.21/2022 in + LPA 476/2021 UNION OF INDIA ......Appellant Through : Mr Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC. versus 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM LPA 476/2021 1 of 20 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 Devi concerned 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PREM LPA 476/2021 2 of 20 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 judgement also noticed that contra view taken by a Single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court in judgement dated 18.07.2019, rendered in CWP No.1504/2019, titled Tulsi Devi v Union of India and Anr.

4.1. Having noticed the said judgment, the learned