Daughter Of Govt. Servant, Who Became Widow Or Divorcee After His Death, Not Entitled To Family Pension: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that for a daughter to be eligible to earn pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules of 1996, she must have a status of a widow or a divorcee while he was alive.
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 noted.
The writ petitions, before the High Court, raised the question whether a daughter of a Government servant, who becomes a widow or divorcee’ after the death of such employee is entitled to family pension as per the provisions of Rules 66 and 67 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 or not.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta asserted, “However 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.”
Advocate Pramendra Bohra represented the Petitioners while Advocate Meenal Singhvi represented the Respondents.
One Kashinath Vyas served as a Reader (Munsarim) in the office of Judicial Magistrate. He retired in the year 1982 and after his superannuation, he used to get family pension as per the Rules of 1996 until he passed away in 2017.The daughter of the deceased Government Servant, was happily married to one Meghraj Acharya but her husband also passed away in the year 2023. After the death of her husband, the petitioner being daughter of the deceased Government servant (aged 73 years) moved an application for grant of family pension under the Rules of 1996 in the year 2024.
The petitioner’s application came to be rejected by way of an order. The petitioner assailed this decision on various grounds, including that the order impugned was non-speaking.
It was the petitioner’s case that Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules of 1996 unequivocally includes widowed daughter and therefore, the petitioner (being a widow daughter of the deceased Government servant) is eligible to receive family pension under the Rules of 1996.
The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submitted that as the wife of the deceased Government servant had already died, the payment of pension was stopped immediately on the death of the Government servant in September, 2017. It was also argued that the petitioner who was married on the date of death of the Government servant can neither claim her dependency upon her father nor can she claim pension under the provisions of Rules of 1996.
Taking the legislative history into account, the Bench observed that Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules of 1996 did provide pension to widowed/divorced daughter and what changed by virtue of amendments brought in 2012 and 2018 was the upper cap. As far as age barrier of 25 years is concerned, the same was obliterated while also amending the income ceiling from time to time. The essence/soul of the Rules still remained intact.
Referring to Rule 4, the Bench observed that the relevant date for the purpose of reckoning the right of family to receive family pension is the date of retirement or the date of death of Government servant if he dies in harness. The Government servant herein had passed away on September 20, 2017 after having retired in the year 1982. Hence, in the instant case the relevant date was September 20, 2017 and if on that date, he had any widowed/divorced daughter(s), then she would have been entitled to get family pension in accordance with the Rules of 1996.
“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 Bench said.
The Court also clarified, “Maybe, the State Government had issued a circular dated 16.01.2013, conveying benefit of family pension to daughters who got divorced or are widowed after the death of the Government servant, but such circular being completely contrary to the scheme of the Rules, more particularly Rule 4 of the Rules of 1996 cannot be given any credence.”
Thus, finding no substance in the claim of family pension, the Bench dismissed all the writ petitions.
Cause Title: Sarla Devi Acharya & Ors. v. State Of Rajsthan & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:49771]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Pramendra Bohra, Dhanraj Khichi, Prateek Surana
Respondents: Advocates Meenal Singhvi, Rajesh Panwar, AAG Mahaveer Prasad Pareek