Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rajesh Kumari Yadav And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)AWC3257
JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J.
1. Short question that calls for consideration in this case is as to whether the word 'widow' occurring in clause 3 (c) of the New Family Pension Scheme. 1965 (Vitta Samanya Anubhag-2 Shaskiya Sankhya G-2-769/Das-917-61 dated 24th August, 1966] includes 'widows' where the deceased government servant left behind him more widows than one? If not, whether, the eldest widow can surrender/relinquish her right to pension in favour of the widow next to her?
2. Stated briefly, the facts are that one Sri Yad Ram Yadav, a Sub-Inspector of Police, died in a truck accident on 8,2.1992 leaving behind him two widows Smt. Mohar Shree Devi and Smt. Rajesh Kumari Yadav besides one son from the first wife and two sons and a daughter from the second wife. A sum of Rs. 3.30,000 was awarded to the petitioners as compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide award dated 10.2.1994, being Arinexure-1 to the writ petition, with Interest @ 10% per annum from the date of Institution of the case till the date of payment. As regards, pension and other dues payable by the Government to the legal heirs of Yad Ram Yadav, a compromise decree dated 17.7.1995 was passed in Suit No. 449 of 1993. Smt. Rqjesh Kumari Yadav and others v. Smt. Mohar Shree Devi and another. According to the terms of the compromise, being Annexure-2 to the writ petition, Narendra Kumar born out of the wedlock of the deceased and the respondent No. 4, Smt. Mohar Shree Devi, was to be given compassionate appointment in place of the deceased and the family pension exclusively to the petitioner No. 1. Provident Fund, Gratuity and Insurance amount payable by the department as well as the amount in the bank account of the deceased were equally shared by the two widows, namely, petitioner No. 1 and fourth respondent. Relevant clauses of the compromise being clauses 1. 2 and 6 are being quoted below :
1- ;g fd e`rd Jh ;knjke flag ds LFkku ij muds foHkkx esa ukSdjh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj izfroknh la- 2 ujsUnz dqekj dk gksxk ftlesa oknhx.k rFkk 'ks"k izfroknhx.k dks vkifk djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gksxk A 2- ;g fd e`rd Jh ;knjke flag dh isa'ku izkIr dk vf/kdkjh okfnuh ua- 1 Jherh jkts'k dqekjh dks gksxk ftlesa 'ks"k oknhx.k rFkk izfroknhx.k dks vkifk djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gksxk A 3-&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 4-&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 5-&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 6- ;g fd e`rd Jh ;knjke flag dh foHkkxh; /kujkf'k ftlesa izfoMsUV QaM] xzsP;qVh rFkk chek /kujkf'k rFkk ;fn dksbZ vU; izHkkxh; /kujkf'k gks rFkk cSad esa tks ,dkmUV gks og Hkh okfnuh la- 1 Jherh jkts'k dqekjh rFkk izfrokfnuh la- 1 Jherh eksgj Jh nsoh vk/kh&vk/kh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gksxh A*
3. The petitioner staked her claim for family pension to the exclusion of the 4th respondent on the basis of the compromise decree aforestated. The Department, it appears, released the provident fund. etc. in favour of the two widows of Yad Ram Yadav on the basis of the compromise decree but did not accept the same in so far as family pension is concerned which according to the decree was to be paid to the petitioner No. 1. the petitioners then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.. 24018 of 1997 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.7.1997 with a direction to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Housing and Welfare) Uttar Pradesh, Police Head Quarter, Allahabad to decide the said representation stated to have been filed by petitioners. The said authority was given liberty to "obtain any guidance for getting the matter decided". Consequent upon the said direction, the representation was considered by the concerned authority, namely, Vitta Niyantrak, Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarter, Allahabad who rejected the petitioner's representation and directed that the pension be paid to the 4th respondent, Smt. Mohar Shree Devi, on the basis of Family Pension Payment Order issued in her favour. The authority concerned, it appears, took into consideration Note 3 to clause 3 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1965; the opinion of the DGC and the directions issued by the State Government in passing the impugned order. It would appear that the concerned authority declined to act on the basis of the compromise decree due to the reason that the department was not impleaded as a party to the civil suit in which the compromise decree aforestated was passed and hence it was not bound by the said decree. The fourth respondent being the eldest living widow of the deceased was held entitled to get family pension in preference to petitioner No. 1.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel representing the state authorities.
5. Clause 3 of the New Family Pension Scheme, 1965 provides that the scheme would be administered in the following manner :
^^3- mi;qZDr ;kstuk dk iz'kklu fuEufyf[kr izdkj ls gksxk&& d- ifjokj isa'ku lsok esa jgrs gq;s ;k lsokfuo`fr ds ckn e`R;q gksus ij ml n'kk essa vuqeU; (admissible) gksxk tc lsokfuo`fr ds ckn e`R;q gksus dh n'kk esa ljdkjh deZpkjh e`R;q ds le; dksbZ izfrdkj (Compensaation) v'kDrrk (Invalid) lsok gks fuo`fr Retiring ;k vf/ko"kZrk Superannuation isa'ku ik jgk gks ;k ik jgk gksrk vkSj lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus dh n'kk esa ;fn mlesa Hkkk jfgr NqV~Vh dh vof/k M;wVh ds :i esa u ekuk x;k fuyEcu rFkk 20 o"kZ dh vk;q ls igys dh x;h lsok vof/k lfEefyr ugha gS iwjh dj yh gks A [k- bl ;kstuk ds iz;kstu ds fy;s ^^ifjokj** esa ljdkjh deZpkjh ds fuEufyf[kr lEcU/kh lfEefyr jgsaxs A 1- iRuh@ifr] 2- vo;Ld iq=] 3- vfookfgr vo;Ld iqf=;k A fVIi.kh 1-&&mi;qZDr 2 vkSj 3 esa lsokfuo`fr ls jgrs oS/k :i ls xksn yh x;h lUrku Hkh lfEefyr gksxh A fVIi.kh 2-&& lsokfuo`fr ds ckn fd;k x;k fookg bl ;kstuk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy;s ekU; ugha le>k tk;sxk A x- isa'ku fuEufyf[kr n'kkvksa esa miyC/k admissible gksxh& 1- fo/kok@fo/kqj dh n'kk esa e`R;q ;k iqufoZokg tks Hkh igys gks] ds fnukad rd A 2- vo;Ld iq= dh n'kk es tcfd mldh vk;q 18 o"kZ dh u gks tk;s A 3- vfookfgr iq=h dh n'kk esa tc rd fd mldh 21 o"kZ dh vk;q ;k fookg tks Hkh igys gk] u gks tk;s A fVIi.kh 3-&&tgk nks ;k nks ls vf/kd fo/kok;sa gksa rks isa'ku T;s"Bre mkjthoh fo/kok dks ns; gksxh A mldh e`R;q@iqufoZokg gksus ij ;g isa'ku vxyh mkjthoh fo/kok] ;fn dksbZ gks] dks ns; gsxh A 'kCn&T;s"Bre&dk rkRi;Z fookg ds fnukad ds funsZ'k ofj"Brk ls gS A ?k- bl ;kstuk ds v/khu nh x;h isa'ku ,d le; esa ljdkjh deZpkjh ds ifjokj ds ,d ls vf/kd lnL;ksa dks ns; ugha gksxh A og fuEufyf[kr e ls vuqeU; (admissible) gksxh vFkkZr igys fo/kok@fo/kwj dks] mlds ckn T;s"Bre mkjthoh vo;Ld iq= dks vkSj rRi'pkr~ T;s"Bre mkjthoh vfookfgr vo;Ld iq=h dks A M+- fo/kok@fo/kqj dk iufoZokg@e`R;q gks tkus ij isa'ku muds vo;Ld lUrkuksa dks muds izr vfHkHkkod (natural guardian) ds ek/;e ls gh nh tk;sxh] fdUrq fooknkLin ekeyksa esa Hkqxrku fof/kd vfHkHkkod (Legal guardian) ds ek/;e ls fd;k tk;sxk A p- 'kklukns'k la[;k th&2&1160@nl&909&1959] fnukad 4 viSy] 1964] esa Lohr rnFkZ o`f) bl ;kstuk ds v/khu Lohr ifjokj isa'ku ds fy;s vuqeU; (admissible) ugha gksxh A**
6. Section. 13 of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904. inter alia, provides that in all Uttar Pradesh Acts, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include plural and vice versa . The New Family Pension Scheme. 1965 was introduced with the view to liberalising the U. P. Liberalised Pension Rules. 1961 and the U. P. Retirement Benefits Rules. 1961. The pension scheme is. in fact, a social security scheme and regard being had to the object sought to be achieved by the U. P. Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 and the U. P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 as amended by the New Family Pension Scheme. 1965. I am of the considered view that but for Note 3 the word 'widow' occurring in clause 3 (c) of the New Family Pension Scheme. 1965. would include 'widows' where the deceased Government servant left behind him two or more than two widows. Note 3 appended to sub-clause (c) of clause 3 of the New Pension Scheme. 1965, is an integral part of the scheme. "The note", observed the Supreme Court in Samurai Electronics (Pvt.j Ltd. v. Municipal Council, (1998) 2 SCC 707. "is a part of the rule which must be construed accordingly." The note no doubt appears to be discriminatory but the vires of the note was not canvassed before me and. therefore. I refrain from expressing any considered opinion on the validity of the note. However, the note lays down a rule of preference and provides that where the deceased Government servant has left two or more widows, the pension would be payable to the eldest/senior most living widow and upon her death or remarriage, to the next surviving widow, if any. Seniority, according to the note, is to be determined wilh effect from the date of marriage. Nothing in the New Family Pension Scheme, 1965. however, inhibits the senlormost widow frorn relinquishing her claim of pension under the scheme in favour of any other surviving widow. The compromise decree passed in civil suit referred to above is in fact an agreement between the parties thereto with the command of the Court super-added to it and is tantamount to rclinquishmenl of the right in favour of the petitioner No. 1, Such an agreement being not contrary to law is binding not only on the parties to the agreement but on the Government and the department as well in respect of the pension payable by them to the widow of the deceased Government servant, The competent authority, in my opinion, was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for family pension--a right which stood relinquished and transferred in favour of petitioner No. i on the basis of the compromise decree referred to above.
7. In view of the. above discussion, the petition succeeds and fs allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue Pension Payment Order (Parivarik Pension Pradhikar Palra) in favour of petitioner No. 1 in suppression of previous Pension Payment Order issued in favour of fourth respondent and to pay family pension to the petitioner No. 1. Pension, if any, already paid to the fourth respondent pursuant to the Pension Payment Order issued in her favour shall, however, be not recovered from her and the petitioner No. 1 would not be entitled to claim the amount of pension, if any. already, paid to the fourth respondent. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.