IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Smt Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1939 of 2023 & CM. APPL.7367 of 2023
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Family Pension - Claim for Family Pension - The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner had foregone all her claims and was not entitled to family pension as admitted in a previous order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to grant the payment of family pension in her favor, but the court found that she had foregone all her claims and was not entitled to family pension.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner had foregone all her claims and was not entitled to family pension as admitted in a previous order.
Issues: Claim for family pension by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner had foregone all her claims and was not entitled to family pension as admitted in a previous order.
Final Decision: The present petition along with pending application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present writ petition, petitioner is seeking directions to respondents to grant the payment of family pension in her favour.
2. Learned counsel for respondents, who is appearing on advance notice, has drawn the attention of this Court to para 5 of order dated 02.07.2007 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said para is reproduced as under:
"5. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the submissions made at the bar, we see no reason why the respondents should not examine and expeditiously process the claim for payment of family pension in favour of petitioner no. 1 who is the lawfully married wife of the deceased Subedar Bani Singh. Insofar as the claim made by petitioner no. 2 is concerned, Mr. Kauntao counsel appearing for the said petitioner fairly conceded that since a question mark has been put on the legitimacy of the second marriage, the claim made by her for payment of pension may be taken as not pressed. He, however, sought liberty for petitioner no. 2 to make a claim on behalf of her minor children for grant of pensionary benefits which claim, the respondents shall examine and suitably dispose of in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. The needful shall be done expeditiously but not later than four months from the date a representation is made to the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts through Officer-in-charge Records, Jat Regiment. Representation to be made within four weeks from today."
3. Since the petitioner has already foregone all her claims in the said petition, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for respondents has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that pursuant to order dated 02.07.2007, the children of the petitioner got pension along with the first wife of deceased Subedar Bani Singh.
5. Accordingly, since petitioner was not entitled for family pension, as was admitted in order dated 02.07.2007, and she had foregone her claims, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application is dismissed.
A petitioner who has foregone all claims and is not entitled to the relief sought cannot maintain the petition.
A second wife is not entitled to family pension benefits if the first wife is alive, but the son of the second wife is eligible for family pension until the age of 25.
Pensionary benefits cannot be subject to testamentary disposition.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.