VILASINI AMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a widow of one Parameswaran Nair, who was discharged from military service on 21-12-1957. Parameswaran Nair died 7-8-1966. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to family pension. She applied for it. Her application was rejected on 20-12-1986. Copy of the order is Ext. P7. The only reason stated in Ext. P7 to reject the application of the petitioner is that she is not entitled to pension, since the petitioner married the deceased after the retirement.

(2.) True, the petitioner married the deceased on 15-1-1959. But, this is not a bar for claiming family pension under the scheme, Ext. P1, modified by Ext. P4. I say so, because this aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 2088 (Bhagwanti v. Union of lndia) and the Supreme Court observed the basic principle for providing family pension and the right of the spouse and child to obtain family pension. The Supreme Court observed thus:

(3.) The above quote relates to Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Same is the position in regard to pension payable to the family of persons in military service. In the same decision (AIR 1989 S.C. 2088) a case of a military personal- an ex Subedar of Indian Army was also considered and the Supreme Court held that family pension is payable to wives of post retirement marriage of the employees and their children.