LexSMT. BHAGWANTI AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.l A SMT. BHAGWANTI AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AUGUST 29, 1989 & [RANOANATH MISRA AND G,L. OZA, ff] Cehlral Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972-Rule 54(14)(b)- 'Family'-Definition of-Clauses (i) and (ii) held ultra vires Article ·- 14--SpiJuiies who get married lifter tetii'erhent of Government servant~ ·-: Children born aftet retirefnent~Whether erititied to family peiisidn. c Constitution of India-Article 14--Rule 54(14) (b )(i) and (ii)- 1 Central Civil Services (Pemwn) Rules-Held ultra vires. ; i.. tliese two Writ Petitions have been filed by the widows of tile t> pelisidliets viz. Smt. haugwanti and Smt. Sharda Swamy, as they have been refused family pension after the demise of their husbands. SOit. Bliagwlinti is tile widow of an Ex-Subedar of the Indian Army who retired after sef\tiiill rot 18 yeurs du 3.8.1941. He was given 't pension. in 1955 liis wife died and in 1965 he married the petitioner. Tlie Subedat died Iii September 1985 in an accident. The Petitioner E Snit. Bhligwanti whU has two minor children applied for family pension but the same was not gt anted to her. -- The other Petitioner Smt. Sharda Swamy is the wife of the retired r11ilway employee. Bet husband took voluntary retirement at the age of " 44 yeaf!I lfi !'iltWeHill~r 1919. The Petitioner married her deceased F iioSbiillil ltt 1!Jll1 ettd has a daughter born to liet in 1984. Petitioner's husbiiiiil died in 198/i, the petitioner appiied for a faiiiliy pettslon but by ti Mier dat~d 3.8.1~88, slie was informed that b~r application bas be~u fej~ded. lt was stated tlietein that it has not been found possible to incllide wife of a Government Servant who bad married after retire- ment in the dellnltion of "family" for grant offamily pension. G Iii the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Union, the stand A taken in the flrst case is that the pension has been refused as the marriage was after retirement and in the other case the Union relied on the dellnition of "family" occurring in Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central l:i tlvil services (Pension) itdles 1912, which speaks of marriage before retirement. 1010 SMT. BHAGWANTI v. U.0.1 1011 J The common stand taken thus by the Union is that family pension A would not be admissible to spouses who get married after the retire• ment of the Government servant nor to children born after retirement. Allowing the Writ Petitions this Court i HELD: Pension is payable, as pointed out iii several Jlldgiiieiits ~ of this Court, oil the consideration of past service feniiereif· tiy the· ' - ' '· .. - . . Government servant. Pay ability of the family pension is basically on the - self-same consideration. Since pension is linked with past SOi"viCe and 7'- the avowed purpose of the Pension Rules is W pto•ide sosteriaiice in oid age, distinction between marriage during service and marriage after -.·. retirement appears to be indeed arbitrary. [10141i•i01Slt] c ., Admittedly, the definition of "family" as it stands after amerid• .. ritent excludes the spouse of the Government servant who has got riuir• \ ded to such Government servant after hisjher retirement and the children born after retirement also stand excluded. [1014F] b In most cases, marriage after retirement is done to provide pro- tection, secure companionship and to secure support in old agl!, [j(liSC] -< The consideration upon which pension proper is admissible or the benefit of the family pension bas been extended do not justify the dis- tinction envisaged in the deflJlition of "family" by keeping the post- E retiral spouse out of it, [I015D] The two limitations iricorporated in the definition of "family" 1 suffer froni the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination arid caririot be supported by nexus or reasonable dassificatiiin. [iOi6Di F The words "provided the marriage took place before retireliierii of the Government servant" in clause (I) arid "but shail not ini:lllde son or daughter born after retirement" in clause (ii) are t_hiis ultra viies . ,; . . Article 14 of the Constitution and caiiuot be sustained. [10161':] D.S. Nakara.& Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2SCR165; beoki G ).. Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Suppl. SCR 634; Smt. Poonamalv. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 3 SCR 1042; referred io. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 1128 and 1204 of 1988; H lOU SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R. (Under Article 32 of the Con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.