Widow's Family Pension Must Be Paid From Date Of Husband's Death : Supreme Court

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar was dealing with an appeal filed by the widow of a Railway employee who had died in harness, in 2000, challenging the Bombay High Court order that allowed her claim for family pension, restricting the benefit only from 2014 (the year she first moved the CAT), instead of 2000.

The appellant and her husband were residing separately due to a dispute and was unaware of her husband's service particulars at the time of his death. Her husband was subsequently dismissed from service in 2001, after his death. When the appellant appealed against the dismissal, her plea was rejected in 2012 on grounds of delay and discrepancy in the recorded dates of death. Later a civil suit was filed which declared 12.11.2000 as the correct date of her husband's death. Thereafter, she approached the CAT. However, the Tribunal dismissed her plea as time barred. Subsequently, she moved the Bombay High Court, which granted her family pension but only from 2014 onwards.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that family pension was due upon her immediately on her husband's death, and the same could not be curtailed to a later date.

On the contrary, the Union government relied on Union of India v Tarsem Singh, to argue that the High Court was right in restricting arrears in line with the principle that consequential relief for recurring wrongs is normally confined to three years prior to the filing of the writ.

The Supreme Court noted that while Tarsem Singh laid down that arrears should ordinarily be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition, an earlier decision in SK Mastan Bee v General Manager, South Central Railway (which specifically dealt with a widow's claim for family pension) had taken a different view, which was not considered in Tarsem Singh.

Referring to SK Mastan Bee, the Court held that it was the employer's obligation to compute and offer family pension to the widow without driving her to litigation, and that denial of the benefit amounted to a violation of Article 21. It also observed that the widow's illiteracy and lack of resources justified granting pension “from the date on which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband.”

The bench also relied upon Dr Shah Faesal v Union of India and Parveen Kumar @ Parveen Chauhan v State of Haryana, to reiterate settled principles governing conflicting decisions. The Court observed that a coordinate bench of equal strength cannot take a contrary view without referring the matter to a larger bench, and that where a subsequent decision fails to consider an earlier binding decision on the same point, the subsequent decision would be per incuriam and devoid of precedential value.

Applying the aforesaid, the Could held that “SK Mastan Bee (supra) is directly related to the case of family pension claim by a widow like in the present case. This Court, while taking a view in Tarsem Singh (supra) that the consequential relief of recovery of arrears should be restricted by the High Courts normally to a period of three years prior to the date of the filing of the writ petition, has not taken into consideration the earlier view of this Court in SK Mastan Bee (supra).”

Holding that the pension is a valuable right and property, and not a bounty, the Court found that restricting the benefit to 2014 would inflict injustice upon a poor widow who was not at fault for the delay, and her claim having been repeatedly stalled over a discrepancy in the date of death that she was constrained to resolve through a civil litigation.

“Not only that her husband was dismissed after his death which was impermissible as per the Railway Board's own circular, the appellant's subsequent representation claiming family pension was rejected on the ground of incongruity as to the date of death of her late husband. The appellant had to file a civil suit to obtain a declaration as to the exact date of death of her husband, for which otherwise, a death certificate, a statutory document, had already been issued in her favour. Thus, the appellant was not at fault in laying the delayed challenge to the Railways' refusal to grant family pension to her,” the bench held.

In the light of above, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant shall be entitled to family pension from the date of death of her husband (12.11.2000), with 6% interest per annum within three months of the order.

Case: Maya Banerjee v Union of India & Ors

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 912

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mr Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, AOR; Mr PV Yogeswaran, Adv.; Mr Y Lokesh, Adv.; Mr Bibek Tripathi, Adv.; Mr Arun Singh, Adv.; Mr V Kandha Prabhu, Adv.; Ms Dhatri Singh, Adv.; Ms Hari Preethi, Adv.; Mr Surya Narayana Patro, Adv.; Mr Guneswaran PV, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr Anil Kaushik, ASG; Mr Amrish Kumar, AOR; Mr Rajat Nair, Adv.; Mr Pranjal Singh, Adv.; Ms Nasadiya Singh, Adv.; Mr Ishaan Sharma, Adv.; Mr Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Adv.