KANTA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 710 · Decided: 20-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KANTA DEVI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : ._ 
Anny Instructions No. 51 of 198()-/>ara 6-Note(2)-:Family-Not 
C recognising maniages after retirement of anny personnel-Consequent denial 
·of family pension to widow of ex-~ervicemmr-Held: Harsh and heartless 
provision and hence Note(2) struck down. 
The petitioner, a widow of an ex-serviceman, was denied family 
pension because Para 6 of the Army Instructions No. 51 of 1980 which 
D defm:ed "family", though includes wife, said in Note (2) that marriage after 
retirement would not be recognised. This was challenged by the petitioner 
in this Writ Petition. 
E 
F 
G 
Allowing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that marriages after retirement from 
army are performed with an eye on getting family pension. This thinking 
is rally abhorrent. As persons retire early from armed senrices, they 
remain of marriageable age in many cases and do not company of a consort 
to be with them in times of distress. As family pension becomes due on the 
death of the incumbent, the rider contained in Note(2) of Para 6 of the 
Army Instructions No. 51 of 1980 is indeed a harsh and heartless 
provision, as it denies family pension to those who shared the difficulties 
of the ex-servicemen faced after their retirement, and is, therefore, struck 
down. [711-D, E] 
2. The respondents are directed to pay family pension to the 
petitioner, as if Para 6 of the Army Instructions No.51 of 1980 had not 
contained Note (2). (711-F] 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 294 of 
H 1990. 
710 
KANTADEVIv. U.0.1. [HANSARIA,J.] 
711 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
A.P. Mohanty and S.K Sabbarwal for the Petitioner. 
V.C.Mahajan, Ms. Shashi Kiran and Anil Katiyar for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was pelivered by 
A 
B 
HANSARIA, J. The petitioner, a widow of an ex-serviceman, has 
made a grievance, and rightly, that she is not being, paid family pension 
only becalise she was married to the ex-serviceman after his retirement 
from active service. This has come to happen because Para 6 of the Army C 
Instructions No. 51 of 1980 which has defined "Family", though includes 
wife, says in Note (2)that marriage after retirement will not be recognised. 
2. The petitioner has assailed the reasonableness of this provision 
and we have no difficulty in agreeing with the petitioner inasmuch we D 
cannot countenance the stand and submission that marriages after retire-
ment are performed with an . eye to get family pensiori. This thinking is 
really abhorrent. As persons retire early from armed services, they remain 
of marriageable age in many cases and do need company of a consort to 
be with them in times of distress. As family pensfon becomes due on the 
death of the incumbent, the rider contained in the Note is indeed a harsh E 
and heartless provision, as it denies family pension to those who shared 
the difficulties of the ex-servicemen faced after their retirement. 
3. In view of the above, we strike down Note (2) because of its 
irrationality and direct the respondents to pay family pension to the 
petitioner, as if the aforementioned Army Instructions had not' contained F 
Note (2). All the required actions shall be taken within three months from 
today. 
4. The petition is allowed accordingly. Cost assessed at Rs. 5,000. 
G.N. 
Petition allowed. 
A 
ALL INDIA EX-EMERGENCY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND 
SHORT COMMD. OFFICERS WELFARE ASSN. AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Service Law:· 
C 
Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service _Com-
D 
missioned Officers(Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971: 
Benefits extended to holders of reserved posts and not to holders of 
non-reserved posts-Whether discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the 
Constitution of India-Held: No. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Art. 14-:Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Ser-
vice Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971-B'enefit 
E 
extended to holders of non-reserved posts-Held: Not vio?ative of equality 
cla!-lse. 
· 
The Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service 
Commissioned Officers (Reservations of Vacancies) Rules, 1971 were 
framed to compensate the Emergency Commissioned officers for the 
F 
chances they had lost by entering public s_ervi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.