New Delhi: Can a deceased government employee’s parents claim his family pension after the remarriage of his childless widow?
A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court answered in the negative and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, ruling that a childless widow’s right to receive a family pension continues even after her remarriage, provided her income remains below the prescribed limit.
The court Tuesday dismissed a writ petition filed by the parents of a deceased constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenging the continuance of the pension to the widow after her remarriage.
The bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan said they were “not unmindful of the hardship” pleaded by the parents of the deceased CRPF personnel.
“However, it is trite that considerations of sympathy, equity or compassion, howsoever compelling, cannot override the express provisions of a statutory pension scheme or form the basis for invalidating a rule which is otherwise constitutionally sound,” the court said.
It added that in the absence of any demonstrated violation of constitutional principles, the challenge to the validity of Rule 54 of the 1972 Rules, and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 2 September 2008 could not be sustained.
The court further noted that the rule includes an “in-built safeguard” regarding income: the pension only continues if the widow’s independent resources are insufficient.
The case
The controversy began following the death of Constable/Bugler Bhim Singh of the 90 Battalion, CRPF, who drowned during rescue operations in the 2014 Jammu & Kashmir floods.
His widow, Anita Devi, was granted the family pension, but Singh’s parents challenged her entitlement after she remarried and subsequently had a child from her second marriage.
The petitioners specifically assailed the legality of Rule 54 and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 2 September 2008.
The clause states that a childless widow shall continue to receive family pension even after her remarriage subject to the condition that it shall stop only once her independent income from all other sources becomes equal to or higher than the government’s minimum prescribed family pension.
The parents that the rule was “conspicuously silent” on whether a widow who was childless at the time of her husband’s death could be treated as “childless”, if she had a child in a subsequent marriage.
They contended that her remarriage and new motherhood should disqualify her from being part of the “family” of the deceased employee, thereby making the dependent parents eligible for the pension.
What the court said
Justices Kshetarpal and Mahajan clarified that family pension is fundamentally a statutory entitlement, not a matter of inheritance. “Family pension is not a matter of inheritance, nor is it a benefit that devolves upon all legal heirs of a deceased government servant,” they said.
The court explained that Rule 54 creates a strict hierarchy of beneficiaries. Under this scheme, the widow or widower is given primacy, while parents are classified under Category II.
It also said that parents only become eligible for a family pension “in a situation where the deceased employee has left behind neither a widow nor a child”.
Because Bhim Singh was survived by his widow, the parents’ claim was statutorily ineligible from the outset, the court said.
Addressing post-death relationships
A pivotal part of the court’s explanation focused on how the law defines “family”. The parents argued that the birth of a child in the widow’s second marriage changed her status.
However, the court, drawing on the Supreme Court’s precedent in the 2023 Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India case, ruled that the “legal nexus” is fixed at the time of the employee’s death.
The 24-page judgment noted that the expression “family in relation to a government servant” indicates a direct and proximate relationship to the deceased.
The court held that the birth of a child to the wife of the deceased from her second marriage “does not create any legal nexus between such child and the deceased employee”.
Therefore, “such post-death relationships are legally irrelevant for determining entitlement under Rule 54”; the widow remains a “childless widow” in the eyes of the law because she had no children with the deceased CRPF employee.
A policy choice
In upholding the rule, the court emphasised that the provision favouring of a childless widow “is not an implied or accidental consequence” of the rules”, but a “conscious and express policy choice”.
It added that the provision intended to encourage remarriage of widows while “ensuring that the sacrifice made by members of the armed and paramilitary forces, in the interest of public order and societal welfare, does not leave their immediate dependents financially vulnerable”.
The court said the objective was “not only legitimate but also laudable” and had a “direct and rational” connection with the classification under the rules. It added that the “object is to ensure that the sacrifice made by members of the force “does not leave their immediate dependents financially vulnerable”.
“Significantly, the scheme links cessation of pension not to remarriage as such, but to the income criterion prescribed under the Rules and the executive instructions,” the court said.
The court dismissed the plea, saying the petitioners failed to prove any “manifest arbitrariness” in the rules.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Why Punjab & Haryana HC fined itself Rs 25,000 over delay of a widow’s pension