Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Allowing Childless Widow To Continue Family Pension After Remarriage

The Delhi High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, entitling a childless widow to continue to receive family pension after remarriage.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by the parents of a deceased CRPF personnel seeking grant of family pension to them after the remarriage of their son's widow.

The Court held that a childless widow remains entitled to family pension even after remarriage under Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 .

The Bench upheld the validity of Rule 54 ad well as Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum of September 2008, which permit continuation of family pension to a childless widow subject to income conditions, even after remarriage.

“The provisions clearly disclose a discernible legislative and executive policy aimed at providing financial security to the widow of a deceased member of a disciplined force, even after remarriage, subject to the condition that her independent income does not exceed the prescribed limit,” 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,” it added.

The deceased was a constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who died while performing rescue operations during floods in Jammu & Kashmir in 2014. Following his death, family pension was sanctioned in favour of his widow.

After her remarriage, the parents sought discontinuation of pension to the widow and claimed entitlement themselves, contending that continuation of pension to a remarried widow was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Rejecting the plea, the Bench observed that the parents failed to demonstrate that Rule 54 violates any constitutional provision or that it is manifestly arbitrary in the constitutional sense.

It added that merely because a different interpretation or policy choice may appear possible does not furnish a ground for striking down a statutory provision which otherwise satisfies constitutional scrutiny.

“The Rule accords primacy to the widow or widower of the deceased government servant. Parents of the deceased employee fall under Category-II beneficiaries and their entitlement arises only in the contingencies expressly contemplated by the Rule,” the Court said.

“The Petitioners, being the parents of the deceased employee, do not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 54 for grant of family pension in the presence of an eligible widow, and no vested or preferential right in their favour can be inferred dehors the Rules,” it held.

Title: SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ANR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Click here to read order