RAM KALA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for placing on record certified copy of the plaint as Annexure P-11, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by affidavit. Said document is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. Office to append the same at appropriate place. CM stands disposed of. CWP-11573-2015 Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 27.02.2015 (Annexure P-10) whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been rejected.

(2.) The reason for rejection is on account of the fact that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Singh Ram had disappeared on account of his own violition as he was accused of murder of the son of the petitioner and his own son also, for which FIR dated 03.06.2001, under Section 302 IPC, was registered and he was declared 'Proclaimed Offender'. The judgment whereby the husband had been declared dead on account of being missing for the last 7 years dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure P-4) was discarded on the ground that the Court had not mentioned these facts. Resultantly, the proceedings for family pension, in a manner, were postponed on the ground that as and when the husband would be acquitted from the said charge, petitioner's case would be reconsidered and a fresh application may be submitted. Reliance was placed upon circular dated 03.03.1989 that where an official would disappear after committing frauds, the family pension would be sanctioned only when the Government employee is acquitted by the Court of law. The note reads as under:

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has, accordingly, argued that the petitioner is aggrieved on 2 accounts, firstly, the husband, as such, has committed the murder of their only son. Secondly, on account of him allegedly absconding and having been declared Proclaimed Offender, she has been denied the benefit of family pension. It is, accordingly, argued that the petitioner's right for family pension cannot be curtailed on account of the misconduct of the husband, as such and even otherwise, there is a presumption that he has died, which is further fortified from the Civil Court decree dated 26.08.2013 (Annexure P-4). The entitlement for payment of family pension would be from the date the husband went missing. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be a beneficiary of the misconduct of the husband and therefore, the above note, as such, would not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances. Counsel for Union of India has, however, opposed the said arguments on the ground that pension is not a matter of right and the Government employee has to maintain good conduct thereafter also. In such circumstances, once there was an FIR under Section 302 IPC, lodged against the husband and he went absconding, the petitioner was not entitled for the family pension. Reliance has also been placed upon the earlier orders passed by this Court on 18.03.2009 (Annexure P-3) whereby denial had been made on earlier occasions, i.e., 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-1) and 11.02.2009 (Annexure P-2), rejecting the family pension, at that point of time and the writ petition had been dismissed.