Suman Devi & Another vs Union Of India & Others

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ

Both these appeals arise out of order dt. 10th September, 2021 in CWP No.2978 of 2013 and so they are being decided by this common order.

The parties will be referred as per their array in the Writ petition.

The said Writ petition was filed by parents of one Vinod Kumar, who had worked in the CRPF and who died on 10.09.2012 after prolonged illness. Respondent No.4 in the writ petition is his wife and respondent no.6 is his minor daughter.

After the death of Vinod Kumar, his widow was paid Rs.13,99,476/- on account of various service benefits as his nominee, including Rs.5,41,292 towards medical reimbursement.

The petitioners, who are parents of the deceased, contended that they incurred considerable expenditure to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical treatment for their son by borrowing money from the relatives and also for the funeral expenses and customary rites; that they are poor agriculturists and are unable to return the borrowed money; and that sum of Rs.5,41,292 should have been paid to the 2nd petitioner (father of the deceased) since he had incurred around Rs.6,00,000/- for the medical treatment of the deceased.

It is contended that the widow was only a nominee and was, thus, only a trustee and the money received by her should be disbursed to all legal heirs as per their entitlement under the Law of Succession. It is contended that the 1st petitioner was a class one heir of the deceased being his mother and was entitled to equal share of the service benefits of the deceased along with his widow and daughter should have got 1/3rd share.

It is, however, admitted that the petitioners were paid Rs.2,50,000/- as ex-gratia for being the parents of the deceased.

It is contended that the family pension to the dependents of the deceased was not settled and the widow of Vinod Kumar had since got married to one Mukesh Kumar and she cannot be granted the family pension which is required by the 1st petitioner.

Following reliefs were prayed in the writ petition:

“1. To direct respondents 1 to 3 to sanction family pension to the 1st petitioner and proforma respondent being mother and minor daughter of late Vinod Kumar w.e.f 10-09-2012.

To recover 2/3 amount out of the amount of service benefits paid to respondent no.4 and pay 1/35 amount to the 1st petitioner after adjustment of the ex-gratia amount of her share as mentioned in para-8 of the petition and deposit the remaining 1/3 amount in fixed deposit in the name of proforma respondent to be paid to her on her attaining the age of majority.

To direct respondents 1 to 3 to pay amount of medical reimbursement of Rs.5,41,292/- to the petitioners and recover the same from respondent no.4 which has been wrongly and erroneously paid to her.

Respondent no.4 may be directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid share of the 1st petitioner and the proforma respondent from the due date till payment thereof.”

The widow filed a reply in the writ petition opposing the entertainment of the writ petition.

She contended that because of unhealthy atmosphere created at home by the petitioners, she was compelled to proceed to her parents house. She stated that she as a wife of the deceased, she made the entire payment of the amount borrowed from the relatives for the treatment during his illness, and had given Rs.6,00,000/- cash to the petitioners and there were no dues to the relatives. She contended that the petitioners are not legally entitled for equal share in the service benefits of her deceased husband. She denied that she has married anyone and stated that she was residing in her parents’ house.

Respondents no.1 to 3 have filed written statement contended that deceased Vinod Kumar met natural death not attributable to active Government service and family pension is sanctioned as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘Pension rules). They contended that as per her entitlement, the widow had been paid Rs.6,10,000/- towards risk fund, Rs.32,700/- towards Group Insurance Scheme, Rs.2,14,484/- towards Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity, Rs.61,353/- towards leave encashment, Rs.10,000/- towards financial relief from the WAF and Rs.5,41, 292/- towards medical reimbursement.

They also stated that the petitioners had been paid Rs.2,50,000/- out of Central Welfare as per department instructions. They contended that the widow is only legal heir of the deceased and she was paid the full financial benefits as per the Pension Rules. According to them, the financial benefits, including family pension, are payable as per the said Rules and not under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is also stated that the widow had not remarried.

Order of the learned Single Judge

On 10.09.2021, the Writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. He held that the petitioners as well as the widow and the 6th respondent are all entitled to pension since all of them are dependent on the earnings of the deceased.

As regards the claim for release of medical expenses made by the petitioners, he held that it is open to the petitioners to avail other remedies available to them in view of the fact that no valid 6 proof is adduced by them that they had in fact incurred such expenses for treatment of the deceased.

The LPAs

LPA No.204 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners in the Writ petition challenging the order of the learned Single Judge reiterating their claim that they are class-I heirs along with the widow of deceased son and that they should have been given share in the amount of Rs.14,70,829/- paid to the widow as the 1st petitioner being the mother of the deceased is a class-I heir and she is entitled to equal share alongwith the widow and the daughter. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Vishin N. Khanchandani & another vs Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani & another (2000) 6 SCC 724and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.935 of 2012. They also claimed Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical reimbursement claiming that they alone had incurred the same.

Respondents no.1 to 3 in the writ petition also challenged the said order pointing out that as per CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, the family pension is payable to the widow or widower up to the death or remarriage whichever is earlier and as per Rule 54(6) thereof, the parents would not be entitled; and therefore the direction of the learned Single Judge that the family pension should be equally divided among the family members of the deceased, cannot be sustained. They also referred to Rule 54(8)(i) of the, the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which states that the family pension shall not payable to more than one member of the family at the same time.

Learned counsel for the widow opposed LPA No.204 of 2022 and supported the appellants in LPA No.130 of 2022.

The consideration by the Court

We have noted the contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, insofar as it is relevant as regards family pension states as under:-

“(6)The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-

(I) subject to first proviso, in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;

(ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;

(iii) subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier;

(iv) subject to sub-rule (10-A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before the death of the Government servant, for life;

(v) Subject to sub-rule 10(B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the Government Servant immediately before the death of Government servant, for life.”

This provision entitles only the widow or the widower as the case may be to receive family pension up to the date of their death or remarriage.

There is thus a specific rule providing for entitlement of family pension only to the widow or the widower, and the parents would not be entitled to the same in the event the deceased is married and his wife survives.

The provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, cannot have any application in view of specific rule referred to above, when the widow is alive, and when there is no evidence as in the instant case that she has remarried.

The decision of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioners in Shri Vishin N. Khanchandani ( 1 supra) relates to amounts invested in National Saving Certificates and payment with regard to the same on the death of the holder of the certificate. The said decision turned on the rules governing the same, but in the instant case in the light of the specific provision in the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 to the contra i.e., the Rule 54(6) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, it will override the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the petitioners cannot claim under the Hindu Succession Act,1956, any share in the payments which are to be given on the death of son of the petitioners.

Therefore, the findings of the learned Single Judge that the parents are also entitled to family pension alongwith widow and the minor child of the deceased, is unsustainable.

As regards the claim for medical reimbursement of Rs.5,41,292/-, which had been paid to the widow by the official respondents is concerned, though the petitioners claim it, in the absence of material placed before us that thy did borrow the sum of money, they cannot be granted relief.

Since anyway the petitioners have been admittedly paid by the official respondents Rs.2,50,000/- out of Central Welfare Fund, whatever amount they have incurred towards funeral expenses, which are now being claimed by them, can be met out of the said payment.

Accordingly, the LPA No.204 of 2022 filed by the petitioners is dismissed and LPA No.130 of 2022 filed by respondents no.1 to 3 is allowed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.