$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on:27.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 27.01.2026 + W.P.(C) NO. 11263/2023 & CM APPL. 43849/2023 SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Deepak Kohli and Mr.

Rishi Vohra, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, SPC with Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law Officer; Insp. Athurv and Mr.

Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners, who are the parents of late CT/Bug Bhim Singh, an employee of the 90 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force [hereinafter referred to as „CRPF‟], assailing the correctness of Office Order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Respondents, whereby the claim of Petitioners for grant of family pension to them, was declined. The Petition, in essence, questions the legality of the Respondents‟ action in continuing to disburse family pension in favour of Respondent No.6, the widow of the deceased employee, notwithstanding her remarriage.

2. In the course of assailing the rejection of their claim, the Petitioners have also laid challenge to the validity of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as „Rules‟] and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008, insofar as the said provisions permit a childless widow of a deceased government servant to continue to receive family pension even after remarriage, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

3. The issues which arise for consideration in the present Petition are as follows:

i. Whether the parents of a deceased government employee are entitled to family pension where a childless widow after her remarriage exists and continues to be eligible under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

ii. Whether Rule 54 and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008, is unconstitutional or arbitrary.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

5. Late CT/Bug Bhim Singh was enlisted as a Constable (Bugler) in the CRPF on 05.04.2011 and, after completion of his basic training, was posted to the 90 Battalion, CRPF. At the relevant time, he was deployed at an outpost of the Battalion located at Arwani SOG Camp near Bijbehara Railway Station, District Anantnag, Jammu &

Kashmir.

6. On 05.09.2014, the area where the said outpost was situated witnessed unprecedented and continuous heavy rainfall, resulting in severe flooding. The outpost was submerged under approximately 12 to 15 feet of water, and several personnel of the Force were trapped. During the rescue operations undertaken in the course of official duty to save fellow personnel, late CT/Bug Bhim Singh was swept away by the flood waters and drowned. His mortal remains were recovered on

09.09.2014.

7. A Court of Inquiry was conducted by the competent authority, which concluded that the death of late CT/Bug Bhim Singh had occurred while he was performing bona fide government duty. Consequent thereto, the Respondents treated the death as one attributable to official duty and extended the admissible service benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.

8. At the time of his death, late CT/Bug Bhim Singh had left behind his wife, Respondent No.6 herein, namely Smt. Anita Devi, as well as his parents, the Petitioners herein. As per the nomination forms and service records submitted by the deceased employee during his lifetime, Respondent No.6, his wife, was nominated as the beneficiary for the purpose of family pension and other terminal benefits.

9. In accordance with Rule 54 of the Rules, family pension and other admissible benefits were sanctioned in favour of Respondent No.6, being the widow of the deceased employee. There is no dispute that at