Family Pension Denial To Mother Of A Martyr Is Highly Unjust, Chhattisgarh HC Directs Claim Processing In Six Weeks

The Chhattisgarh High Court gave huge relief to a 68-year-old elderly mother, who sought continuation of family pension, a benefit the family received since her son’s death in 2002. Her son, then a 21-year-old, was martyred in a Naxal encounter. She has been waiting for justice for the last four years to receive the family pension, which was discontinued after her husband passed away on August 23, 2020.

A divisional bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that the administrative issues should not be the reason to place people at a disadvantage. The court ruled that the denial of a family pension to the mother of a martyr is “highly unjust” and directed the authorities to process the claim within six weeks.

Since the son was unmarried when he died, his father, Lobin Lakra, was granted the family pension. When the father died in 2020, the mother applied to transfer the family pension to her name. However, the Treasury Offices denied her application, citing the  Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam, 1965, rule, per which, “after the death of a person receiving Family Pension, there is nо direction under the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam, 1965 to provide Family Pension to his/her successor.”

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the 1965 rules were discriminatory. The counsel pointed out that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules of 1963 provide that the pension sanctioned to the father of a deceased employee will be payable to the mother after his death. Further, he argued that the Rules of 1965 were made in compliance with or following the Rules of 1963, and thus, any deviation from the Rules of 1965 that is discriminatory is “illegal and unconstitutional”.

In response, the respondents’ counsel argued in this case, “the provision for grant of family pension is governed by the Pension Rules, 1965, in which there is no such provision for extending the benefit of family pension to the successor of the family pensioner.”

The Court noted that the 1965 Rules were intended to be in compliance with or follow the 1963 Rules, and rejected the State’s rigid interpretation. The Court noted that police personnel often work in high-risk environments, particularly in Naxal-affected regions.

Court Judgement

The Court held, “We have no hesitation in holding that the Act of 1965 should also contain a similar provision as provided in the Rules of 1963, which was brought into by amendment in the year 1970, so as to provide the benefit of pension to the mother of the deceased employee after the death of the father who had been sanctioned pension. Denial of pension to the mother of the deceased employee is highly unjust, especially when in the present case, the son of the petitioner laid his life in a naxal attack.”

It directed the state authorities to grant the petitioner the extraordinary family pension along with all arrears. The court gave a six-week deadline to process the claim.