“Parents become entitled to family pension when the widow remarries”, ruled the Himachal Pradesh high court coming to aid of an 83-year-old mother of a Border Security Force (BSF) soldier.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma directed Union of India to grant family pension to Shankari Devi, 83, while setting aside a decades-old rejection order making her ineligible.
The court directed the Union government to consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of family pension, strictly in terms of Sub-clause 10 of Rule 50 of the Rules, which makes parents entitled for pension after remarriage of a widow.
The petitioner apprised the HC that Shankari Devi’s son Lekh Ram joined BSF in 1979. In 1985, Lekh Ram got married to Suraksha, but after 10 days of marriage, Lekh Ram expired under mysterious circumstances. On account of services rendered by Lekh Ram, family pension was initially allowed in favour of widow Suraksha. But as in 1990, Suraksha married again in December 1990, she became ineligible for family pension. Suraksha herself apprised the department in writing that she is not drawing family pension since 1990 after remarriage.
After remarriage of Surkasha, Shankari Devi and her husband Sita Ram (who died during pendency of petition), applied for family pension, but such prayer never came to be accepted on the pretext that parents of deceased employees were not entitled to family pension. Thus they moved the HC pleading that since their daughter-in-law had stopped taking family pension after remarriage in 1990, they ought to have been granted family pension, but for no justifiable reasons, she was denied her legitimate right in August 1999.
{{/usCountry}}After remarriage of Surkasha, Shankari Devi and her husband Sita Ram (who died during pendency of petition), applied for family pension, but such prayer never came to be accepted on the pretext that parents of deceased employees were not entitled to family pension. Thus they moved the HC pleading that since their daughter-in-law had stopped taking family pension after remarriage in 1990, they ought to have been granted family pension, but for no justifiable reasons, she was denied her legitimate right in August 1999.
{{/usCountry}}The HC while quashing this order issued by the BSF’s Pay and Accounts Division, directed Union government to “consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of family pension, strictly in terms of Sub-clause 10 of Rule 50 of the Rules, which makes parents entitled for pension after remarriage of widow”.
“Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful claim for years together coupled with the fact that petitioner is 83 years old, this court hopes and trusts that needful at the behest of the Union government shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks, by affording due opportunity of hearing,” read the court order while adding, “In case, Shankari Devi is found eligible for family pension, she shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years prior to filing of the petition”.
The Union government is directed to file compliance within three weeks, after expiry of six weeks granted by this court for doing the needful.