Daughter Who Became Widowed/ Divorced After Death Of Govt Employee Parent Falls Outside “Family” Under Pension Rules: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions filed by daughters claiming family pension pursuant to their respective parents' death who were government employees, on the basis of them attaining status of a widow or a divorcee, subsequent to their parents' demise.The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the relevant date for determining family's right to receive family pension...
Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions filed by daughters claiming family pension pursuant to their respective parents' death who were government employees, on the basis of them attaining status of a widow or a divorcee, subsequent to their parents' demise.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta ruled that the relevant date for determining family's right to receive family pension was the date of retirement or the date of death of the government servant, and accordingly, for a daughter to be eligible for father's pension, she must have a status of a widow or a divorcee on such a date. Her status subsequent to the father's death would not render her the right to claim family pension.
“since the Government servant had passed away on 20.09.2017 and on such fateful day, the petitioner was having a surviving matrimony and as she was obviously not a widowed daughter, she cannot be brought within the realm of definition of “family” defined under the Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996 by any stretch of statutory interpretation.”
The Court was hearing a bunch of writ petitions in this regard in which the case of Sarla Devi Acharya (“petitioner”) was taken as the lead case.
The Petitioner's father, who was a government employee, retired in 1982 and used to get family pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”) till he passed away in 2017. At that time, the petitioner was married to her husband, however, her husband also passed away in 2023.
After her husband's death, the petitioner filed an application claiming family pension under Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules, which was rejected. Against this decision, the writ petition was moved before the Court.
It was the case of the petitioner that Rules 66 and 67 included widowed daughter which entitled her to receive the family pension. Furthermore, it was also submitted that a clarification dated January 16, 2023, (“the Clarification”) was also issued by the Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department which clarified that even if the daughter became a widow after the government employee's death, she was entitled to the family pension.
On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents argued that since petitioner's mother had already passed away earlier, the family pension stopped immediately on the death of the father in 2017, and the petitioner could not claim her dependency on father and resulting revival of the pension because of subsequent death of her husband since she was married on the day of her father's death.
Furthermore, the counsel also submitted that the Clarification was contrary to the scheme of the Rules and therefore the latter would prevail. It was also pointed out that now, the Finance Department had also clarified that daughter of a government employee who became widow or divorcee after the employee's death could not claim family pension.
After hearing contentions from both sides, the Court framed the question to be answered as: “Whether a married daughter whose matrimonial ties are severed due to death of her husband or dissolution of marriage, that too on a date posterior to the death of the Government servant is entitled to pension under the Rules of 1996 or not?”
The Court opined that the relevant date to be considered for ascertaining family's right to family pension was the date of employee's retirement or death. It was held that in the present case the relevant date was the one in 2017 and if on that date, the employee had any widowed/ divorced daughter(s), she would have been entitled for the family pension. However, the petitioner's husband was alive in 2017 and passed away only in 2023 which brought her outside “family” as defined under the Rules.
“For a daughter to be eligible to earn pension under the Rules of 1996, she must have a status of widow or a divorcee' – her status subsequent to the death of the Government servant cannot clothe her with a right to claim family pension under the subject Rules.”
The Court further made a reference to the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ratna Sarkar of the Calcutta High Court in which it was held that the legislative intent was never to include a daughter in the family pension, who was married at the time of the pensioner's death. Hence, a daughter who became widowed after the pensioner's demise, had no right to claim family pension.
Furthermore, the Court also rejected the Clarification relied upon by the petitioner, by making a reference to a division bench case of the Court, viz., Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Hemlata Sharma & Anr. in which it was ruled that,
“By administrative circulars, a new class or category which otherwise was not included for the purposes of grant of family pension, could not be included as that would amount to supplanting the rules… None of the provisions contained in Rule 75 of the Rules of 1993 indicate that the rule ever sought to include a divorced/widowed daughter, who was otherwise leading a married life on the date of death of her father, the retired employee or even on the date of death of her widowed mother, who was getting family pension.”
In this light, the Court held that since the Clarification issued was completely contrary to the scheme of the Rules, it could not be given any credence.
Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.
Title: Sarla Devi Acharya v the District and Sessions judge & Ors. and other connected petitions
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 391