The Rajasthan High Court recently directed the Railway Department to grant family pension to an illiterate widow of a deceased railway employee, despite the absence of their names in the deceased’s nomination form for an insurance scheme.

The Court observed that substantive rights cannot be denied due to procedural lapses, particularly when the aggrieved party is illiterate. "The substantive right of a citizen cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses, that too in a situation wherein the petitioner is hand to mouth for her survival and from a prolonged period is made a subject to grave mental distress and financial agony," the Court said.

The Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain also directed the Railway Department to pay Rs. 1 lakh in compensation to the widow for the mental distress and financial hardship she faced over the years. The Court emphasized that legal technicalities should not be used to deprive citizens of their fundamental rights, especially when the petitioner lacks legal knowledge.

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

The case involved a widow whose husband, a former Indian Railways employee, passed away in 2008. Lacking knowledge of the legal process and being illiterate, she approached the authorities in 2012 seeking family pension. However, her request was initially denied as her name and that of her daughters were not mentioned in her husband’s nomination form for the insurance scheme.

In 2013, the widow obtained a succession certificate, and, following a trial court order, the Railway Department disbursed pension arrears for the period between 2009 and 2013. However, her counsel argued that the calculation was incorrect and the full amount of pension had not been paid. Additionally, the widow had not received any pension for the period beyond 2013.

The respondent department opposed the petition, citing procedural delays, the availability of alternative remedies, and the omission of the petitioner’s name from the nomination form.

However, the Court rejected these arguments, stating that procedural errors should not be used to deny substantive rights, particularly in the case of an illiterate petitioner. The Bench criticized the Railway Department for taking advantage of the widow’s illiteracy and emotional instability. He noted that her husband was "barely literate" and that the nomination form appeared to have been filled out by someone else, who had mistakenly left out the petitioner’s details.

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway, in which the Apex Court granted family pension to a widow in a similar situation, acknowledging her lack of legal knowledge and economic vulnerability. The Court also referred to Sampati v. Central Administrative Tribunal, where the Supreme Court held that family pensions, being a vital support for widows and family members of deceased government employees, should not be denied on technical grounds.

The Court further noted that since the Railway Department had already released part of the pension arrears, they could not now refuse to release future payments under the principle of estoppel. "That it is an evident fact that the respondents have already released a portion of the petitioner’s (husband’s) family pension i.e. in-between 2009 – 2013. Therefore, the respondents at this belated stage cannot abstain themselves, from not releasing the further/future pension of the petitioner/ petitioner’s husband and are barred by the principle of estoppel," it said.

Consequently, the Court directed the Railway Department to release the pending family pension arrears and pay Rs. 1 lakh to the widow for the mental agony she had suffered over the years. "..all prayers made by the petitioner are allowed. Withal, qua the mental distress and financial loss borne by the petitioner, over the years, a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lacs Only) shall be deposited by the respondents to the petitioner’s bank account, by way of appropriate measures, within a period of one month. The said cost is awarded taking note of the aforementioned observations; especially for the maintenance of the petitioner, safeguarding her fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Smt. Leela Devi v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation No. 2024:RJ-JP:40298]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Veyankatesh Garg

Respondent: Advocate P.C. Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Sameer JainRajasthan High Court

Sukriti Mishra