IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11658 of 2010 BINITA PRASAD WIFE OF LATE BISHWANATH BANDYOPADHAYA, I.A.S. 1965 (BATCH), RESIDENT OF 56, JAMUNA APARTMENT, BORING ROAD, PATNA-13 ……………………………………………..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSONERS WELFARE, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR, ALL INDIA SERVICE DIVISION, DOPT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF A.G. MAHARASHTRA (A&E)-1, 101, M.K. ROAD, OLD CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI-20. 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI-23……………. RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER:- MR. Y.V. GIRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR. SANJEEV KUMAR, MR. PRAMOD KUMAR, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT – MR. S.D. SINGH, ADVOCATE -------- 2 26-7-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. The relevant facts appearing from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner was married in the year 1965 with one Bishwanath Bandyopadhyay a member of Indian Administrative Service of 1965 Batch who died in the year 1970 leaving as his heirs this petitioner and one daughter. Petitioner remarried on 1-8-1976 and as a result family pension to her was discontinued but her daughter was getting family pension as per Rule till November 1993 when she got married. It is the case of the petitioner that from the second marriage she has no child and there is nobody to support her and the second husband has also died on 29-5- 2 2004. No pension scheme or family pension scheme is available to the petitioner even from her second husband. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the resolution of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension of the Central Government dated 29th August, 2008 annexed as annexure-4 shows that on the basis of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission relating to principles governing pension and other terminal benefits, a provision, which has been accepted by the Government, provides continuation of family pension to a child-less widow of a deceased government employee even after her re-marriage subject to disqualification on quantum of her independent income from all sources becoming equal to or higher than the minimum prescribed family pension in the Central Government. From annexure-3 dated 17th December, 2009 it appears that the concerned department of the Government of India expressed its inability to accept the request of the petitioner for revival of family pension on the ground that she is not a child-less widow because admittedly, she has a daughter and secondly because paragraph-8.6 in the O.M. dated 2-9-2008 regarding continuation of family pension is applicable from 1-1-2006. Petitioner’s application bearing O.A. No. 193 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, has been disposed of without any relief to the petitioner by order dated 26-3-09, under challenge. However, the impugned order shows that the matter has been remanded by the Tribunal for passing of a fresh order. In 3 view of order of remand passed by the Tribunal we are not persuaded to re-consider the matters on merits but it is observed that if petitioner is so advised, she may rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara Vrs. The Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 in support of her stand that the beneficial provisions in question should have been made applicable in the case of the petitioner also but the monetary benefits could have been made available only from 1-1-2006. So far as ground no.1 for rejecting petitioner’s claim is concerned, we are of the view that it is a matter of policy. But according to learned counsel for the petitioner under the All India Services ( Conditions of Service in Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960,the Central Government has the power to relax rules and regulation in certain cases and petitioner’s case being a case of hardship should be considered by the Central Government sympathetically in exercise of power of relaxation. As indicated earlier, we do not express any view in the matter. This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid matters before the concerned authorities of the Central Government to whom the matter has been remanded by the Tribuna. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( B.P.Verma, J) 4