$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 25.10.2024 + W.P.(C) 8407/2022 SMT. RUPA RANI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Randhir Singh Kalkal, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC with Mr. O.P. Verma, Adv.

SI Prahlad, CISF.

SI Shiv Kumar CT/GD Mohit Kumar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for a direction to the respondents to restore the family pension of the petitioner after stopping the pension being granted to her daughter. The petitioner also challenges the Order dated 18.11.2021 passed by respondents informing her that as per the rules, she is not eligible for grant of family pension after remarriage.

Case of the petitioner

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the unfortunate demise of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C)8407/2022 Page1of6 her husband on 26.08.2001, who was enrolled in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short, ‘CISF’), the petitioner was granted family pension vide Pension Payment Order (PPO) No.232830200219 dated 07.02.2002 w.e.f. 27.08.2001. She remarried on 13.02.2006 and thereafter, the family pension was stopped and transferred in the name of her daughter from the first husband.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 15.07.2016 seeking restoration of her family pension. Having received no response to the same, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 15.10.2016 to the respondent. In reply to her legal notice, she was informed that as per the O.M. of Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare F.No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 02.09.2008, only a childless widow of a deceased Government employee is entitled to receive family pension after her remarriage. The petitioner was informed that as she had a daughter from her earlier marriage, she was not eligible for the grant of the family pension.

4. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner made another representation dated 24.12.2020 to the respondents. The respondents again by the Impugned Order dated 18.11.2021 informed the petitioner that she was not eligible for the grant of the family pension.

5. Aggrieved of the above, the petitioner has filed the present petition claiming the above mentioned relief.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C)8407/2022 Page2of6 Order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, ‘CAT’) in Original Application (in short, ‘OA’) No. 2822/2016 titled Renu Gupta (Pension Claimant) vs. Union of India & Ors., submits that in the said case as well, the petitioner therein had remarried the brother of her late husband and had a son; her family pension was stopped and the same was granted to the son; the petitioner therein had approached the learned CAT seeking restoration of her family pension; and the learned CAT, vide the above said Order, after placing reliance on the OM dated 01.04.2011 of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions bearing No. 1/4/2011-P&PW(E), granted relief to the petitioner therein holding that she is entitled for the family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, ‘CCS (Pension) Rules’) and that there is no legal bar in transferring the pension in her name. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is therefore, entitled to the family pension even though he has a daughter from her first marriage and has remarried.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, by placing reliance on Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules submits, that in terms thereof, family pension is payable in case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or remarriage. He submit