Widow Convicted In A Murder Case Eligible For Family Pension Since The Case Doesn't Relate To Husband's Death: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Bench of Justice G. S. Sandhawalia was hearing the case of one Baljinder Kaur who challenged the order passed by Haryana State Authorities whereby her claim for (a) grant of arrears of monthly financial assistance and (b) family pension was rejected.

Facts of the Case

Petitioner's husband was working as a teacher in the Haryana Education Department and he died on 17^th November 2008, leaving behind the petitioner as his widow along with children.

In view of the Rules of 2006 (Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006), the financial assistance became payable on the death of any Government employee, to the family of such deceased employee.

Also, such monthly assistance has to be paid till the date specified in the Rules of 2006 or the date the employee would have retired from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation, which in the present case is 31^st October 2017. The eligibility of the widow to receive the family pension comes thereafter.

The Widow-Petitioner continued to draw the monthly financial assistance for some time, but then she was involved in a murder case and was convicted on 19^th November 2011 along with Gurjeet Singh and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The matter before the Court

The Authorities cited her conduct to deny the said benefits to her. It was stated that she had been convicted by the Court and, therefore, pecuniary benefits could not be extended to her on both accounts monthly financial assistance and the liability of family pension.

Resultantly, she filed a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking release of the (a) benefits of family pension including the arrears of monthly financial assistance, (b) family pension and other benefits along with the arrears of revised pay on account of revision of pay scale from November, 2011 and other admissible benefits due to Tarsem Singh (her husband) who had died during service on 17^th November 2008.

Court's Observations

On conjoint reading of 2006 Rules, Punjab Civil Service Rules & Family Pension Rules, 1964, the Court found that the Rules talk about the withholding or withdrawing of the pension in case of conviction of a pensioner of a serious crime or his guilty of gross misconduct but the same does not refer to the family member receiving financial aid.

Also, the Court observed that there is nothing mentioned about the misconduct, as such, of the family members for not being entitled for the monthly financial assistance.

Thus, the Court opined that receiving the monthly financial assistance could not have been denied by the respondents as per Punjab Civil Service Rules.

In this backdrop, the Court opined,

"It is not disputed that the petitioner-widow has committed the offence of murder and is on bail and her sentence has been suspended and, therefore, she requires to maintain herself and cannot be denied the financial assistance and it is not a bounty, as such, and is her right on account of the services rendered by her husband to the Government."

Further, taking into account the Family Pension Rules, 1964 [Rule 4(a) and (b)], the Court observed that the same relate to the eligibility to receive the family pension if a person is charged with the offence of murdering the Government employee or for abetting in the commission of such an offence.

In the present case, the Court noted, the conviction of the petitioner is not on account of murdering her own husband Tarsem Singh.

Thus, the Court said,

"The said provision, as such, cannot be relied upon by the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner as it is a disqualification to the other family members for receiving benefits, which are arising out of the right to receive the family pension. Only if the Government employee has been murdered, the disqualification, as such, would arise."

The Court also observed that Rule 4(a) and (b) of the Family Pension Rules, 1964 is based on the principle as provided under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Under Section 25 of the HSA, 1956, wherein any person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of offence.

In other words, the Court said,

"The purpose behind Rule 4-A(a) of the Family Pension Rules, 1964 is to debar the family members, as such, from getting the family pension if they are involved in committing the murder or abetting the murder of the Government employee on the old fable that `one cannot kill the goose which lays the golden eggs"

Court's order

The Court observed,

"The order dated 12 September 2017, denying pension to the petitioner on account of her conviction, is unrelated to the death of her husband and is not sustainable and accordingly, the said order is set aside."

Accordingly, a mandamus was issued to the respondents to pay the arrears of monthly financial assistance to the petitioner, which was admissible under the Rules of 2006 till it was payable.

Thereafter, the Court said, the case of the petitioner for payment of family pension be processed and the arrears be paid to her.

The Court also directed that she shall also be entitled to the benefit of simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said arrears from the date they became payable.