CHANCHAL DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Subhash Singh was working as a Sepoy/Cook in the Army. He died in harness on 11.7.1989. His widow Meera Devi was sanctioned special family pension with effect from 12.7.1989. She remarried on 15.2.1991 as such she became disentitled to family pension. Although special family pension was sanctioned but she was not paid a penny ever on that account. Thereafter the claim for special family pension was made on behalf of the petitioner who was the surviving mother of the deceased Sepoy/Cook. The claim was returned with the remarks that the claim should be forwarded in the name of the father of the deceased being superior eligible heir. Then the family pension claim was forwarded on behalf of late Shri Ravinder Singh father of the deceased. Accordingly family pension was sanctioned in his favour from the date of application i.e. 2.11.1993 in terms of para 230 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (for short 'the Regulations). However Ravinder Singh also died on 13.3.2005 leaving behind his widow Chanchal Devi the petitioner. She submitted an application for release of the special family pension in her favour. Vide letter dated 31.5.2005 (P-5) the request of the petitioner for grant of family pension was declined on the ground that there existed no provision for third life award for grant of family pension. Again vide communication dated 4.7.2005 (P-6) addressed to the petitioner the family pension was denied to her on the ground that as per rules there was no provision of third life award for grant of family pension and the case was treated as finally closed. The orders dated 31.5.2005 and 4.7.2005 (P-5 and P-6 respectively) have been challenged in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the provisions of Regulations have been misinterpreted.

(2.) Notice of motion having been issued respondents have taken the stand that she is not entitled to the grant of family pension as third life award of family pension is not permissible in terms of Sub-para (2) of Regulation 230 of the Regulations.

(3.) The short question which arises for determination in the present petition is whether the petitioner in her capacity as a widow mother is entitled to receive the family pension when the widow became ineligible on account of her remarriage and the father of the deceased Sepoy/Cook is no more. In that regard the respondents have relied upon Regulation 230 of the Regulations.