Widow To Receive Family Pension From Date Of Husband’s Death, Not Tribunal Claim Date, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that a widow’s family pension cannot be restricted to the date on which she first approached a tribunal when the delay in making the claim was not her fault. The apex court has now directed the Railways to pay the widow family pension from November 12, 2000, the date of her husband’s death, with 6 per cent annual interest. Her claim had been held up for years because of a dispute over her husband’s date of death.

The court found that the widow was not responsible for the delay. She had to first approach a civil court to establish the correct date of her husband’s death before pursuing her family pension claim.

Widow Had To Settle Death Date Dispute

The woman’s husband, a Railway employee, had passed away while in service in 2000. The couple had been living separately due to a dispute, and she was unaware of his service details when he died.

The employee was dismissed from service in 2001, after his death. The widow later challenged the dismissal, but her plea was rejected in 2012 because of delay and a discrepancy in the recorded date of death.

After clarifying November 12, 2000 as the correct date of her husband’s death in a civil court, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking a family pension. The Tribunal rejected her claim as ‘time barred’. She subsequently moved the Bombay High Court, which granted her family pension, but restricted the benefit to 2014, the year in which she had first approached the CAT.

The widow challenged this restriction before the Supreme Court, arguing that her entitlement to family pension had arisen on the date of her husband’s death.

Delay Did Not Bar Pension From 2000

The Union government had argued that the arrears should be limited under the principle that relief for recurring wrongs is ordinarily restricted to three years before a writ petition is filed.

The Supreme Court, however, relied on an earlier ruling specifically concerning a widow’s family pension. The court had held in that case that an employer had a duty to calculate and provide family pension without forcing an eligible widow to seek the benefit through litigation.

The court found that the same principle applied in this case, too. It noted that the earlier ruling had not been considered when the subsequent decision on limiting arrears was delivered.

Family Pension is a Valuable Right

The Supreme Court held that family pension is a valuable right and not a discretionary payment. It also considered the circumstances behind the delay. The widow had to pursue civil litigation to establish her husband’s correct date of death, despite having a death certificate.

Accordingly, the allowed her appeal and directed the Railways to pay family pension from November 12, 2000, with 6 per cent interest per annum. The payment has to be made within three months of the order.