Cause Of Action For Claiming Family Pension Arises Only Upon Death Of Pensioner; Speculative Claims Not Valid: Delhi HC

Background

Ms. Kumkum Dania was a government school teacher from Delhi. She had joined the school before her marriage, and had already superannuated in 2018. Thereupon, she had continued working under re-employment terms.

Ms. Dania was married to Mr. Kulbhushan Dania since 1990. However, the relationship was strained from the outset, and they separated in 2008. Kulbhushan alleged that she deliberately failed to update her marital status and omitted his and their children's names from her school service records to deprive him of family pension benefits. He sought a mandatory injunction for processing the family pension and asked for an inquiry into Ms. Dania's alleged misconduct.

However, Ms. Dania argued that her failure to update her marital status was unintentional and was rectified as soon as it came to her attention. She accused Kulbhushan of harassing her through repeated complaints and legal actions. However, the trial court dismissed her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Aggrieved, she filed a revision petition against the trial court order.

Arguments

Ms. Dania argued that family pension rights arise only upon the pensioner's demise. For this reason, she submitted that Mr. Dania could not claim family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. She argued that the application must be dismissed as it does not disclose any cause of action.

However, Mr. Dania argued that Ms. Dania's failure to properly declare all her family members in the service records amounted to misconduct. He explained that to rectify this, he sought an injunction from the trial court to expedite the processing of his family pension. He argued that Ms. Dania's deliberate non-disclosure prevented him from being recognized as a family member who is eligible for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Court's Reasoning

The court considered the definition of “family pension” under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021. It explained that as per the rule, the entitlement only arises upon the death of the pensioner and provides benefits to the surviving family members. It clarified that during the lifetime of a government employee, only the employee is entitled to receive the pension and not his family.

Further, the court noted that the cause of action must be grounded in present and enforceable rights. Since Ms. Dania was alive and receiving her pension, it ruled that no actionable claim for family pension could arise. The court stated that speculative claims based on future uncertain events cannot constitute a valid cause of action.

The court rejected Mr. Dania's claim that not declaring family members in service records disallows them from claiming pension. It clarified that even if names are omitted, eligible family members can apply for pension benefits as and when provided by the pension rules.

Noting the broader context of the litigation, the court held Mr. Dania's repeated complaints and legal proceedings against Ms. Dania to be acts of harassment. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, set aside the trial court's order, and dismissed the suit.

Decided on: December 24, 2024

Neutral Citation: 2024 DHC 10038 | Kumkum Dania v. Kulbhushan Dania

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N.K. Kantawala and Mr. Amaya M. Nair

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan and Ms. Supriya Malik; Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri and Mr. Parv Passi

Click Here To Read/Download The Order