The Delhi High Court has upheld rules allowing a childless widow of a deceased CRPF jawan to continue receiving family pension even after remarriage. The Court said the policy supports widows financially and encourages remarriage, and is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of rules that allow a childless widow of a deceased Central government employee to continue receiving family pension even after her remarriage.
The Court made it clear that such a provision is lawful, reasonable and based on a well-defined government policy aimed at protecting widows from financial hardship.
A Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that there was no legal defect in Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated September 2, 2009. These provisions permit a childless widow to receive family pension even after remarriage, provided she does not have sufficient independent income.
The Court observed that the rules clearly reflect a conscious policy decision of the government to financially support the widow of a deceased government servant, including those serving in armed and paramilitary forces, even after she remarries.
The Bench noted that such support is essential to ensure that the family of a person who sacrificed his life in service of the nation does not suffer financial insecurity.
The Court said,
“The object underlying the provision appears to be 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. Such an object is not only legitimate but also laudable and bears a direct and rational nexus with the classification made under the Rules,”
These observations were made while dismissing a petition filed by the parents of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel who died while on duty.
After his death, family pension was sanctioned to his widow. Later, when the widow remarried, the parents of the deceased approached the authorities claiming that they were now entitled to the family pension.
The parents argued that the widow’s remarriage should automatically disqualify her from receiving pension benefits and that the pension should instead be granted to them as dependent parents.
They further challenged the validity of Rule 54 and a 2008 Office Memorandum, contending that allowing a remarried widow to continue drawing pension was arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory, especially when elderly parents were denied the benefit.
However, the High Court rejected all these arguments. The Bench clarified that family pension is not a form of inheritance, but a statutory benefit strictly governed by pension rules. The Court explained that entitlement to family pension depends entirely on the priority order fixed under the rules and not on emotional or moral considerations.
The Court pointed out that under Rule 54, parents become eligible for family pension only when the deceased employee leaves behind neither a widow nor a child. As long as an eligible widow exists, even if she is childless and remarried, parents cannot claim pension rights.
“The object of family pension is to provide immediate and assured financial support to the closest dependents of the deceased government servant, in an order of priority determined by the rulemaking authority. The primacy accorded to the widow, including a childless widow after remarriage, reflects a policy determination which cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary merely because it excludes parents in the presence of an eligible widow.”
The Bench held that such a classification is reasonable and based on intelligible criteria, and therefore does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equality. It further observed that courts cannot interfere with policy decisions unless they are clearly arbitrary or unconstitutional, which was not the case here.
Advocates Deepak Kohli and Rishi Vohra appeared on behalf of the parents of the deceased CRPF personnel. Advocate Nirvikar Verma represented the Union of India.
By upholding the pension rules, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the government’s policy of protecting widows from financial insecurity and encouraging remarriage without fear of losing pension benefits, especially in cases involving personnel who laid down their lives in service of the nation.
Case Title:
Smt Lakshmi Devi and Anr v. Union of India and Ors
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Pension
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
