JODH SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 09-10-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
I , 
JODH SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
October 9, 1980. 
[D. A. DESAI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Special Family Pension granted under rule 74 of the Pension Regulations 
Jor Air Force-Whether a special family pension admissl'ble to a widow z'n her 
capacity as widow could ever form part of tlw estate of the deceased which 
.could be disposed of by testamentary disposition-'-Pension Regulations for the 
Air Force Rules 74, and 79. 
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court 
HELD: (1) Special family pension sanctioned to the widow of an officer 
.;:if the Indian Air Force by the Pr·esid'ent of India under rule 74 of the Rules 
.could not be subject-matter of testamentary disposition. Special family pension 
is payable to the widow on the1 death of the officer. It is not payable in his 
life time. 
What is not payable during life time of the deceased over which 
he has no power of disposition cannot form part of his estate. It is the event 
.of his death that provides the eligibility, qualification for claiming special family 
pension. 
Such, qualifying event which can only occur on the death of the 
.deceased and which event confers some monetary benefit on someone other 
than the deceased albeit related to the deceased, cannot form part of the estate 
1-0f the deceased which he can dispose of by testamentary disposition. [934B, 
933H-934A] 
• (2) Where a cert~in benefit is admissible on account of status and a status 
that is acquired on the happening of c~rtain event, namely, OR becoming a 
·widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagina-
tion could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. 
If it did not form· 
part of the estate of the deceased it can never be the subject-matter of the 
ctestamentary disposition. [933B-C] 
Special family pension under rule 74 is admissible amongst others to 
widow of an officer. It is not that the deceased gets pension or earns special 
family pension. It is the untimely death of the deceased, the process of death 
having been hastened or accelerated by the hazards of service that the widow 
who is rendered destitute is granted special family pension. Whether the widow 
qualifies for special family pension i• to be determined 
by the sanctioning 
authority, the President in this case. 
The ·special family pension is admissible 
on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there 
wa·s some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow. 
[932H; 933A-B] 
929 
A 
B 
G 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(3) Whether a widow has qualified for a special family pension, gratuity 
H 
·or ordinary family pension is a matter to be dete~mined by the President. If 
the President is satisfied that the widow is eligible for pension, she cannot be 
.denied the benefit 
by 
some 
dependents of the 
deceased 
claiming 
that 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. [1981] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
instead of the widow he or she should have been held eligible. for special family 
pension. Therefore, it is irrdevant whether the deceased had shown his wife 
as his dependent or not if the President is satisfied that she as tlie wido~ of 
the deceased officer was eligible for special family pension. [933F-G] 
B 
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 7254 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1980 of the Punja!) 
and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 555/80. 
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
DESAI, J.-Whether a special family pension awarded by the 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
President to the widow of a deceased officer who belonged to Air 
Force could be the subject-matter of a testamentary disposition by 
the deceased in his life time, 
presents the 
core problem in this 
petition. 
· 
Flt. Lt. Panj Rattan Sigh, 5081 GD(P) was serving in Indian 
Air Force. He died in an aircraft accident arising out of and in the 
course of his employment on June 17, 1966. His survivors are the 
widow, Hardev Kaur respondent 2, his parents, the petitioner in 
this petition being the father of the deceased, two brothers and two 
sisters. Prior to his death he had made his last will and testament 
dated May 14, 1959, whereby he bequethed 'absolutely and forever 
all his property both moveable and immoveable 
to 
his 
father', 
petitioner herein, and also appointed his father as the executor under 
his will. 
Further, during his life time the deceased had appoiflled 
by le

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.