Sushila Devi Rawat vs Union of India and others

R.L. Anand, J.—Smt. Sushila Devi Rawat widow of Late Shri Raghubir Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate orderor direction especially in the nature of mandamus against the respondents directing them to grant her the benefit of pension due from the army side on the death of her husband with effect from 9.8.1991 with interest,

The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband was earlier an army personnel. He served the army for 16 years 10 months and 5 days and was discharged on 31.1.1980. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner joined the service in National Fertilizer Ltd., Nangal on 8.1.l982. He died on 8.8.1991. The case set up by the petitioner is that she is entitled to two family pensions one from the Government of India because her husband served the army up to 31.1.1980 and the other from the National Fertilizer Ltd. because her husband after retirement from the army started serving the National Fertilizer Ltd. till his death took place in the year 1991. According to the petitioner her husband had been contributing towards the Provident Fund when he was under the employment of the National Fertilizer Ltd. She made representation to the respondents for the grant of the family pension but it has been declined by the Government of India. Hence the present writ petition.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. The sole stand of the respondents is that the petitioner is only entitled to o,ne family pension. Either she can claim it from the Government of India or from the National Fertilizer Ltd. but she is not entitled to two family pensions and, therefore, her claim is untenable.

1 have heard Ms. Anu Chatrath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

The short point for determination in this case is as to whether the petitioner can claim two family pensions, one from the Government of India and the other from the office of National Fertilizer Ltd. ?

For determination of this controversy we have to see what was the source of employment and nature of employment of the husband of the petitioner. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner joined the Indian Army and after serving a specified period he retired from the army service. This benefit of family pension is given to the widow or to the family members of the deceased employee by virtue of his service in the army. With regard to the family pension, earned by an employee when he was serving in the National Fertilizer Ltd., source of strength is his service to that very Department and according to the rules of that Department.

It is the admitted case that the husband of the petitioner was contributing towards the Provident Fund. As per rules of the National Fertilizer Ltd., such an employee is entitled to the benefit of family pension. As the source of employment is different, it cannot be said that Smt. Sushila Devi the present petitioner is only entitled to one family pension.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to documents Annexures P-3 and P-8 and submits that earlier respondent No. 4 himself took the stand that in such circumstances the two family pensions are permissible because these are drawn from different source and have not been earned in the same office. Now it is too late for the respondent to take a somersault for depriving the petitioner of the benefit of two pensions. There is a merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even from the document Annexure R-10, it is clear that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of both the pensions and in this regard support can be taken from the judgment of Ker-ala High Court, passed in Original Petition No. 9620 of 1989-W dated 21.3.1994, and this judgment has been mentioned in this annexure itself.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of family pensions from the Army Department as well as from the office of National Fertilizer Ltd. according to rules. There shall be no order as to costs and the benefit of family pension shall be given to the petitioner from the date of the death of her husband. This Court hopes that the benefit shall be released to the petitioner within two months. Copy of order be given Dasti.

Petition allowed.