Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Kamala Rani Biswas vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 March, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
Sl. No. 19
04.03.2014.
S.d. W.P. No. 9287(W) of 2005
Smt. Kamala Rani Biswas
-versus-
The Union of India and others
Mr. Sarbesh Pal
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapas Ballav Mandal
....for the Union of India.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the
petitioner's appeal to the respondent authorities for pension to be
paid to the petitioner as the mother of a deceased BSF personnel, the pension is continued to be paid to the wife of the deceased personnel despite her remarriage.
The Union of India has used an affidavit from which it appears that pursuant to a previous direction of this court passed on WP No. 12409(W) of 2003, the Director General of the Border Security Force considered the matter and passed a reasoned order on March 16, 2004 that the petitioner herein would not be entitled to any pension. That order was passed after the petitioner failed to 2 attend the hearing in Delhi despite being made aware of the date of hearing.
The Union of India refers to the C.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1972 that provides for pension due to death or disability attributable to acts of violence by, inter alia, terrorists.
The petitioner's son fell to a terrorist's bullet. The rules entitle the widow of such a government servant to family pension equal to the pay last drawn by the deceased government servant. Such family pension is admissible to the widow for life or until her remarriage; in the event of remarriage the pension is allowed at the usual rate. The parents of such a deceased government servant are entitled to pension either upon the government servant dying a bachelor or a widower without children.
In the present case, the rules do not permit the pension to be paid to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot be faulted for declining to make any payment to the petitioner other than in terms of the order obtained by the petitioner in the civil suit instituted by her against her formal daughter-in-law.
WP No. 9287(W) of 2005 is disposed of without any order. 3 There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)