Rajasthan HC Orders Railway To Release Family Pension To Widow Despite Omission In Nomination Form Of "Barely Literate" Husband, Imposes ₹1L Cost

Irrespective of not appearing in the nomination form for the insurance scheme, Rajasthan High Court directed Department of Railway to grant family pension to the 'illiterate' widow and daughters of a deceased employee, observing that the substantive right of a citizen could not be denied on account of procedural lapses especially where the aggrieved was an illiterate.

“It is a settled position of law that in matters where the aggrieved person is illiterate or possess zilch knowledge about the legal formalities, he/she cannot be made a prey to the technicalities and complexities of law.”

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain also directed the department to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner for the mental distress and financial loss that she had to endure over the years.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the widow of a former employee of the Indian Railways demanding family pension on account of her husband's death in 2008. Being an illiterate and having no knowledge of legal intricacies or anyone else to guide her, the petitioner had approached the respondents in 2012 regarding family pension.

Initially, the department denied granting the pension on account of the fact that in the nomination form filled by the deceased husband for the insurance scheme, no credentials of the petitioner or her daughters were filled. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a succession certificate and in light of a trial court order, directing the department to disburse the pension to the petitioner, the department disbursed the pension amount for the period between 2009 and 2013.

However, it was the case of the counsel for the petitioner that the amount calculated was wrong and an additional amount had to be paid to the petitioner as pension for that particular period. Furthermore, it was submitted that no pension for the period beyond 2013 was paid to the petitioner. The counsel argued that it was a settled principle of law that once the family pension was allotted to a person, it had to continue for lifetime.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-department opposed the prayers on several grounds including delay in filing the petition, failure to avail alternative efficacious remedy, and non-inclusion of name of the petitioner in the nomination form filled by the deceased husband.

The Court chided the respondent-department for taking benefit of the petitioner's illiteracy and emotional instability and opined that procedural lapses could not deny substantive rights of a citizen especially when the petitioner was struggling to survive and had been a subject of grave mental distress and financial agony for a long time. It also noted that her husband was "barely literate" and the nomination form appeared to have been filled by someone else, who prima facie erroneously omitted to fill in petitioner's credentials in the form.

“The respondent-Railway authorities instead of providing proper, reasonable and appropriate guidance to the petitioner, qua her rights of family pension have extracted benefit of the petitioner's illiteracy and emotional instability.”

Furthermore, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and anr. in which in a similar factual situation, the Apex Court had condoned the delay by the petitioner in approaching the department, and had granted the benefits of family pension to the widow especially highlighting her plight of insufficient means after her husband's death. Furthermore, in the case of Sampati v Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court made a similar observation and held that,

“The family pension is a little assistance to the destitute widows and also to the family members of a deceased government servant, and that should not be denied on technical grounds, but should be accorded, if any substantive right for that exists. The illiteracy and other social practices are also required to be taken into consideration while considering the issues pertaining to the family pension in the light of socio-economic set up.”

The Court also highlighted the fact that since the respondent-department had already released a portion of the family pension, they could not abstain themselves at a belated stage from releasing further/future pension on account of the principle of estoppel.

“It is evident that the respondents have duly released the arrears for the period in between 2009 and 2013, upon intervention of the Court and as on date are finding loop-holes to escape from their responsibility and duty.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondent-department to release the arrears of family pension to the petitioner, and also ordered a cost of Rs. 1 lakh for the petitioner for the mental agony that she had to suffer for all these years.

Title: Smt. Leela Devi v Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 302

Click Here To Read/Download Order