KAMALJIT KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the widow of Malkit Singh, who was in military service. He is stated to have died in Military Hospital at Jaipur due to burns. Petitioner and her children were awarded family pension upto May, 1994. Thereafter, she made request to the authorities to disburse the pensionary benefits. She represented that her re-marriage with his brother of the deceased Jawan will not dis-entitle her from getting the pension. These requests fell in deaf ears. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents. A preliminary objection was raised therein stating that Sepoy Malkit Singh died while on duty in the State of Rajasthan and so this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. Further they have gone to the extent of saying that Malkit Singh died on 4. 3. 1985 due to burns caused by himself. It was a case of suicide. Later it is admitted in the written statement that the petitioner was being paid family pension. It went on to state that on her re-marriage, even with the real brother of the deceased, she is not entitled to ordinary family pension. On these basis it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for.

(3.) PETITIONER , widow of Malkit Singh, married with the brother of the deceased. This fact is admitted in the written statement. In such a situation the relevant Rule that applies to the case in hand is Rule 219 of Section 2 of Service Pension and Gratuity. That Rule states that "a relative specified in regulation 216 shall be eligible for the grant of family pension. " Widow is one mentioned in Regulation 216. Thus, it is beyond controversy that widow is entitled to pension under Rule 219. That Rule further states that if the widow re-marries her deceased husband's brother and continues to live a common life with and/or contributes to the support of the other living eligible heirs she continues to be entitled to family pension. In this case petitioner re-married deceased's direct brother. She is maintaining the son born to her through the deceased Sepoy. Thus, petitioner continues to have a right to get the family pension. That family pension was denied to hex from May, 1994. The said action on the part of the respondents was illegal. So, respondents are directed to pay the entire arrears, of pension due to the petitioner within a month from today. If the entire arrears are not paid within one month, as stated above, that entire arrears will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the expiry of one month till the date of actual payment. We direct the respondents to continue to disburse the family pension due to petitioner regularly month by month.