Case: Rajbala W/O. Mai Chand Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

which is equal to 50% of the basic wages and the dearness allowance, which the deceased husband was drawing at the time of his death is paid to the petitioner under the settlement reached between the company and the employees union. It is not the case of the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a civil servant or employee in civil service before the age of superannuation after leaving army. It is therefore difficult to appreciate as to how the pension received by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1952 can be regarded as pension on the civil side. The late husband of the petitioner was working in a Public Limited Company after his retirement from the army and after his death the petitioner is receiving the family pension under the provisions of the Act of 1952 because of the monthly contribution made by the petitioners husband to the Employees Provident Fund and also by equal monthly contribution made by the company to the same fund during the employment of the petitioner s husband with Telco. The monthly pension under the Family Pension Scheme under the Act of 1952 or dependents allowance paid, is payable to the petitioner by virtue of the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner in Telco while the army pension is payable to the petitioner by virtue of the services of 15 years rendered by the husband of the petitioner in army. Thus in our opinion the decision of the respondents in not granting family pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal.5.In Union of India v. Visalakshy, 1998 II CLR 1166, the division bench of Kerala High Court has held that the widow of a ex-Army employee is entitled to family pension from the army side notwithstanding the benefit of the family pension received by her under the family pension scheme under the provisions of the Act of 1952. In that case the husband of the original petitioner served in Indian Army for 28 years. In 1975 he was discharged from the Army and was granted army pension which he drew till his death. In 1976 he joined Food Corporation of India as a watchman and worked there till his death in 1987. The petitioner was granted family pension under the Family Pension Scheme constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1952 but her claim for army pension was declined on the ground that only one family pension was admissible to her. The learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge reads as under:"In the instant case respondent 1 to 4 have no case that the petitioner is not entitled to pension as per the Army family pension regulations. The only objection is the grant of family pension by the 4th respondent under the family pension scheme. There is no case for the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a civil servant or employed in any civil service before the age of superannuation after leaving the Army and in the absence of any other objection regarding the claim put forward by the petitioner for family pension under the Army regulations, she cannot be denied the benefit of family pension under the Army regulations.It is made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive family pension under the Army regulations shall not stand in the way of the petitioner receiving any other benefit under the family pension scheme introduced under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, particularly in view of the stand taken by the 4th respondent and the additional 5 respondent that the payment of benefit under the said scheme is in addition to any other benefit for which the employees or claimants under them are entitled to from previous employment including military service. It is to be remembered that it is based on such a definite understanding that deductions were made from the wages of employees including the deceased husband of the petitioner. As such the 4th respondent is estopped in law from denying the petitioner the benefit under the family pension scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act."6.The Union of India carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge. The decision of the division bench was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner vide her representation to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. However, strangely the respondent no.2. i.e. Controller General of Defence Accounts took a stand that the decision taken by the Kerala High Court in the above case cannot be treated as rule position for all cases. We are constrained to observe that the respondent No.2 brushed aside the ruling of the Kerala High Court in a totally cavalier fashion. The Kerala High Court has clearly laid down that the fact that the widow of ex-army man is receiving benefits under the family pension scheme under the provisions of the Act of 1952 is no ground for denying the family pension under the Army Rules to the widow of ex-army man. The President of India has conveyed his sanction to the implementation of the Kerala High Court order dated 26.5.1998 regarding the grant of family pension to the widow of army employees for the services rendered by him in the Indian Army notwithstanding any other benefits that may be received by her under the family pension scheme constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1952. Surprisingly the respondent no.2 has tried to over-reach the authority of the High Court by holding that the decision of the Kerala High Court cannot be made applicable to the other similar cases. In our opinion the actions of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 denying army pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal and liable to be struck down.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]After going through the various impugned letters issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 it is seen that the respondents have declined to grant family pension to the petitioner solely on the ground that she is receiving pension under the provisions of the Act of 1952 and monthly dependents allowance from Telco in accordance with the settlement reached between the management of Telco and the employees union. It is clearly seen from the certificate issued by Telco which is annexed at Exhibit IX that the petitioner is receiving family pension under the provisions of the Act of 1952 because of the monthly contributions made by the deceased husband of the petitioner from this monthly wages to the Employees Provident Fund and also by the equal monthly contribution made by the company to the same fund during the period of his employment with the company. As far as the dependents allowance is concerned, which is equal to 50% of the basic wages and the dearness allowance, which the deceased husband was drawing at the time of his death is paid to the petitioner under the settlement reached between the company and the employees union. It is not the case of the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner was a civil servant or employee in civil service before the age of superannuation after leaving army. It is therefore difficult to appreciate as to how the pension received by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1952 can be regarded as pension on the civil side. The late husband of the petitioner was working in a Public Limited Company after his retirement from the army and after his death the petitioner is receiving the family pension under the provisions of the Act of 1952 because of the monthly contribution made by the petitioners husband to the Employees Provident Fund and also by equal monthly contribution made by the company to the same fund during the employment of the petitioner s husband with Telco. The monthly pension under the Family Pension Scheme under the Act of 1952 or dependents allowance paid, is payable to the petitioner by virtue of the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner in Telco while the army pension is payable to the petitioner by virtue of the services of 15 years rendered by the husband of the petitioner in army. Thus in our opinion the decision of the respondents in not granting family pension to the petitioner is whollyis made clear that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive family pension under the Army regulations shall not stand in the way of the petitioner receiving any other benefit under the family pension scheme introduced under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, particularly in view of the stand taken by the 4th respondent and the additional 5 respondent that the payment of benefit under the said scheme is in addition to any other benefit for which the employees or claimants under them are entitled to from previous employment including military service. It is to be remembered that it is based on such a definite understanding that deductions were made from the wages of employees including the deceased husband of the petitioner. As such the 4th respondent is estopped in law from denying the petitioner the benefit under the family pension scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act."6.The Union of India carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which confirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge. The decision of the division bench was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner vide her representation to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. However, strangely the respondent no.2. i.e. Controller General of Defence Accounts took a stand that the decision taken by the Kerala High Court in the above case cannot be treated as rule position for all cases. We are constrained to observe that the respondent No.2 brushed aside the ruling of the Kerala High Court in a totally cavalier fashion. The Kerala High Court has clearly laid down that the fact that the widow ofman is receiving benefits under the family pension scheme under the provisions of the Act of 1952 is no ground for denying the family pension under the Army Rules to the widow ofman. The President of India has conveyed his sanction to the implementation of the Kerala High Court order dated 26.5.1998 regarding the grant of family pension to the widow of army employees for the services rendered by him in the Indian Army notwithstanding any other benefits that may be received by her under the family pension scheme constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1952. Surprisingly the respondent no.2 has tried tothe authority of the High Court by holding that the decision of the Kerala High Court cannot be made applicable to the other similar cases. In our opinion the actions of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 denying army pension to the petitioner is wholly illegal and liable to be struck down.