Rajasthan High Court rejected a series of written applications from daughters who applied for family pension after the death of their respective parents who were government employees on the grounds that they acquired the status of widow or divorcee after the death of their parents.
The bank of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the relevant date for determining the family's entitlement to family pension is the date of retirement or the date of death of the civil servant and accordingly a daughter, in order to be entitled to the father's pension, must have the status of a widow or a divorcee on a such date. Her status after her father's death would not entitle her to a family pension.
“As the government official had died on 20.09.2017 and on such a fateful day, the petitioner had one more marriage behind her and since she was obviously not a widowed daughter, she cannot fall within the ambit of the definition of “family” as below defines Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure 1996 in all respects of statutory interpretation.”
The Court heard a series of writ petitions in this regard, taking the case of Sarla Devi Acharya (“Applicant”) as the main case.
The plaintiff's father, a government employee, retired in 1982 and used to receive a family pension Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”) until his death in 2017. At that time, Plaintiff was married to her husband, but her husband also died in 2023.
After the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application for family pension under Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules, which was rejected. A lawsuit was filed with the court against this decision.
In the case of the petitioner, Rules 66 and 67 concerned the widowed daughter who was entitled to family pension. In addition, it was also submitted that a clarification dated January 16, 2023 (“the Clarification”) was also issued by the Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department clarifying that the daughter is entitled even if she becomes a widow after the death of the government employee becomes a family pension.
On the contrary, the defendant's lawyer argued that the family pension ended immediately with the death of the father in 2017, since the plaintiff's mother had already died and the plaintiff could not claim her dependence on the father and the resulting revival of the pension because of the later death of her husband, as she had married on the day of her father's death.
In addition, the lawyer also submitted that the clarification contradicts the system of rules and therefore the latter takes precedence. It was also pointed out that the Finance Department has now also clarified that the daughter of a government employee who becomes widowed or divorced after the death of the employee is not entitled to family pension.
After hearing the objections of both sides, the court formulated the question to be answered as follows: “Whether a married daughter whose conjugal bond is broken due to the death of her husband or dissolution of marriage at any time after the death of the government servant shall be entitled to pension under the 1996 Rules or not?”
The court held that the relevant time for determining a family's entitlement to a family pension was the date of retirement or death of the employee. It was found that in the present case the relevant date was 2017 and that if the employee had had one or more widowed/divorced daughters on that date, she would have been entitled to the family pension. However, the petitioner's husband was alive in 2017 and did not die until 2023, placing her outside the “family” within the meaning of the rules.
“For a daughter to be entitled to a pension under the 1996 Rules, she must have the status of a widow or a divorcee.” Her status after the death of the government servant cannot entitle her to a family pension under the 1996 Subject Rules. “
The court further referred to the case Union of India & Ors. Vs Ratna Sarkar of the Calcutta High Court, which held that the legislative intention was never to include in the family pension a daughter who was married at the time of the pensioner's death. Therefore, a daughter who was widowed after the pensioner's death was not entitled to a family pension.
Furthermore, the Court also rejected the clarification relied upon by the petitioner citing a case of the Court viz. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Hemlata Sharma & Anr. in which it was decided that
“Administrative Circulars could not introduce a new class or category which was not otherwise provided for grant of family pension as it would amount to substitution of the Rules… None of the provisions contained in Rule 75 of the 1993 Rules indicate that the Rule ever intended to include a divorced/widowed daughter who was receiving a family pension at the time of the death of her father, the retired employee or even at the time of the death of her widowed mother otherwise lived a married life.”
In view of this, the court concluded that the clarification issued was completely inconsistent with the scheme of rules and hence it could not be believed.
Accordingly, the claims were dismissed.
Title: Sarla Devi Acharya vs. District and Sessions Judge and Ors. and other related petitions
Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Click here to read/download the order
