Family Pension To Continue For Childless Widow Even After Remarriage, Says Delhi High Court

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court affirmed that a childless widow of a deceased government servant remains eligible for a family pension even after her remarriage. The bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan emphasised that the inheritance is not a matter of inheritance but of statute, and that judicial sympathy cannot override the provision of the statutory pension scheme. The judgment highlighted the policy intention of providing financial security to the immediate dependents and encouraging continued support to the widow unless their income exceeds the specific income threshold.

Case Background

The legal dispute is between the remarried widow of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable and his elderly parents. The constable, Bug Bhim Singh, died in September 2014, due to drowning during a rescue operation in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir, amid flooding. His death was attributable to official duty and therefore, the government sanctioned a family pension for his wife (Anita Devi), who was the deceased’s nominee and a childless widow at the time.  

However, the widow had remarried. So, in 2016, the parents of the deceased constable informed the CRPF about the remarriage of the daughter-in-law of their deceased son, and requested that the family pension be transferred to them due to their financial dependency. After several rounds of rejections, they filed a writ petition in 2017, challenging the validity of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which gives precedence to remarried widows over dependent parents for family pension.

Arguments

The petitioners (the deceased’s parents) argued that the widow had remarried and now has a child from her second marriage. Thus, she should not be considered as part of the deceased’s family and therefore, should not be entitled to a family pension. They argued that the payment of the family pension to the remarried widow is “legally impermissible and unjustified”. They also contended that exclusion of dependent parents in favour of the remarried widow is a violation of the constitutional vision of a socialist welfare state and invoked Articles 14 and 41.

On the other hand, the respondents (the Union of India and CRPF) contended that Rule 54 provides a clear hierarchy. The counsel argued that the parents are eligible only when the deceased left behind neither a widow nor a child, and stressed that the status of “childless widow” was determined at the time of the employee’s death, and it is not affected by children born from a subsequent marriage.

Court Observation

The court interpreted Rule 54 and held that the rules are self-contained code and entitlement under it is not discretionary but statutory and conditional. It held, “The Rule accords primacy to the widow or widower of the deceased government servant. Parents of the deceased employee fall under Category-II beneficiaries, and their entitlement arises only in the contingencies expressly contemplated by the Rule.”

The court said, “Insofar as dependent parents are concerned, their entitlement is expressly governed by Category-II, sub-category (d) of Rule 54. A plain reading of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that parents become eligible for family pension only in a situation where the deceased employee has left behind neither a widow nor a child. The entitlement of parents is thus contingent and residual in nature, and arises only upon the non-existence of a prior eligible beneficiary under the statutory scheme.”

Court Judgment

The court found no constitutional violation in Rule 54 and the instructions. It ruled that the widow will continue getting the family pension as long as she doesn’t meet the income criteria, and her remarriage does not forfeit her right to get the pension. It said, “The primacy accorded to the widow, including a childless widow after remarriage, reflects a policy determination which cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary merely because it excludes parents in the presence of an eligible widow.”

The court dismissed the writ petition.