Family Pension — Remarriage of childless widow — Child born from subsequent marriage — Priority over dependent parents.
The mother of a deceased GREF employee disputed payment of family pension to his remarried widow, who had a child in her subsequent marriage.
Held
1. Family pension is governed by Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and its statutory order of eligibility; personal law rules of inheritance do not determine entitlement.
2. For the proviso concerning a childless widow, the relevant childlessness is in relation to the marriage with the deceased employee. A child from the subsequent marriage does not remove that status. Continued eligibility remains subject to the prescribed income condition.
3. Dependent parents cannot displace a surviving eligible widow. The challenge to the pension arrangement failed and the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 10–21.)
Petitioner/s: by Advs. Sayujya Radhakrishnan, K.R. Rajeev Krishnan
Respondent/s: by Advs. Suvin R. Menon, Senior Panel Counsel For R1 to R4 O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India, R. Rajasekharan Pillai for R6 P. Ramakrishnan for R5 Sabina Jayan
J U D G M E N T
Can the mother of a deceased employee claim a family pension on account of her son, who died while in service, in preference to a childless widow, who remarries later? While addressing this question, this Court is called upon to interpret the word ‘childless widow’. The mother contends that the widow who remarries and gives birth to a child in the second marriage loses the benefit and the pension will revert to the mother.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the mother of one deceased P.Udayabhanu. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner is entitled to receive family pension in preference to the 6th respondent, the wife of late P.Udayabhanu. This writ petition has been listed before this Court under orders of The Hon’ble The Chief Justice to be heard along with RSA No.764/2013, which has been allowed by this Court by a separate judgment rendered today.
3. The context in which the dispute has arisen before this Court is based on a suit filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that she is the sole legal heir of her deceased son, P.Udayabhanu, who died in service. The claim for family pension is based on the fact that after the death of Udayabhanu, the 6th respondent remarried on 20.3.2000 and thus is disentitled to the family pension. What prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition is a communication dated 08.03.2013 (Ext.P6) directing the concerned Pension Disbursement Authority to stop the disbursement of pension to the petitioner because of the complaint of the 6th respondent.
4. Heard Smt.Sayujya Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.
5. Smt.Sayuja Radhakrishnan contended that based on the findings of the Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam in OS No.446/2000 (Ext.P1), as affirmed in AS No.25/2006 by the Additional District Court (Fast Track-Adhoc), Mavelikkara (Ext.P3) declaring petitioner’s right by the civil court, the authorities cannot sit over the judgment and stop payment of pension which she was otherwise entitled to. She further contended that the widow having remarried and having given birth to a child on 22.2.2001 is disentitled to receive the pension and thus the same will automatically revert back to the petitioner.
6. Conversely, Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, the widow of late Udayabhanu, contended that going by Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on remarriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension. According to the learned counsel, the authorities have rightly stopped the payment of pension to the petitioner, especially since the judgments and decrees obtained by the petitioner are not binding upon them because they were rendered without the employer in the party array. According to the learned counsel, this is precisely the reason why RSA No.764/2013 has been filed questioning the maintainability of the suit itself.
7. Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, pointed out that a childless widow is certainly entitled to draw pension in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Reference is made to the Office Memorandum [Ext.R1(h)] dated 1.4.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, stating that a childless widow of a deceased Central Government employee who had expired before 01.01.2006 shall be eligible for family pension in the light of 6th CPC’s recommendations. Thus, it is pointed out that a childless widow is certainly entitled to pension on account of the death of her husband.
8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar and perused the impugned orders in the writ petition.
9. The preliminary question to be considered by this Court is whether the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased employee, is entitled to get the family pension. To answer the above question, one needs to consider the impact of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. While interpreting the above provision, this Court may have to incidentally trench upon the findings rendered by the civil court with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive family pension. But then, the impact of the decision of this Court in RSA No.764/2013 also will have to be looked into by this Court.
10. When this Court embarks upon this question, it is inevitable for this Court to find that the petitioner had short-circuited the entire proceedings when she and her husband filed a suit as OS No.446/2000 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam, seeking for a declaratory relief that they are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of deceased Udayabhanu and entitled to receive the family pension. No doubt, the judgment was rendered with the 6th respondent in the party array. But then, the suit could not have been ordered in favour of the petitioner, especially since the Department (employer) was not made a party to the suit, and the trial court did not consider the impact of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
11. Had the employer been made a party, the court would have got an opportunity to test the sustainability of the plea raised by the petitioner regarding her entitlement to claim family pension. This is precisely the reason why this Court had interfered with the judgment and decree of the Munsiff’s Court in OS No.446/2000 as affirmed by the appellate court in AS No.25/2006 in the second appeal. In such circumstances, reliance placed on the decision of the civil court is of no consequence insofar as the petitioner's entitlement is concerned.
12. Notwithstanding the above, this Court proceeds to examine the claim of the petitioner in the context of the statutory rules.
13. Pension is not a civil right but nevertheless is a constitutional right which flows out of the statutory regulations framed by the Government. It is in this context that the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules will have to be interpreted by this Court.
14. Unlike a civil right, which revolves on a person on the basis of personal law of inheritance, the right to receive the pension must be judged in the context of the statutory rules alone. Personal law of inheritance has no application in such cases. Viewed in the above perspective, when the entitlement of the petitioner is called in question, such entitlement will have to be judged in the context of the CCS (Pension) Rules alone, and therefore any reference to the respective personal law is impermissible.
15. In order to resolve the issue, this Court needs to delve a little deeper into the order of priority in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which determines the order of priority, is extracted hereunder for reference :
xxx xxx xxx
(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-
(i) subject to first proviso, in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;
(ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty- five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;
(iii) subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier,
(iv) subject to sub-rule (10-A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before the death of the Government servant, for life;
(v) Subject to sub-rule 10(B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the Government Servant immediately before the death of Government servant, for life: Provided that family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on re-marriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon:
Provided further that if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last child attains the age of twenty-five and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind, including the mentally retarded, or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him or her, for life;
(ii) if there are more than one such children suffering from disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him or her ceases to be eligible:
Provided that where the family pension is payable to such twin children it shall be paid in the manner set out in clause (d) of sub-rule (7) of this rule;
(iii) the family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor except in the case of the physically crippled son or daughter who has attained the age of majority;
(iv) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Superintendent or a Principal or a Director or Head of the Institution or his nominee as Chairman and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a Specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child;
(v) the person receiving the family pension as guardian of such son or daughter or such son or daughter not receiving the family pension through a guardian shall produce a certificate, from a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Superintendent or a Principal or a Director or Head of the Institution or his nominee as Chairman and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a Specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation, once, if the disability is permanent and if the disability is temporary, once in every five years to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled;
(vi) in the case of a mentally retarded son or daughter, the family pension shall be payable to a person nominated by the Government servant or the pensioner, as the case may be, and in case no such nomination has been furnished to the Head of Office by such Government servant or pensioner during his lifetime, to the person nominated by the spouse of such Government servant or family pensioner, as the case may be, later on and the Guardianship Certificate issued under section 14 of the National Trust Act, 1999 (No.44 of 1999), by a local level Committee, shall also be accepted for nomination or appointment of guardian for grant of family pension in respect of person(s) suffering from Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities as indicated in the said Act:
Provided also that the grant or continuance of family pension to an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter beyond the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married or re-married or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is the earliest, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause
(ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five years; and
(ii) there is no disabled child eligible to receive family pension in accordance with the second proviso of this sub-rule: Provided also that such disabled siblings shall be eligible for family pension for life in the same manner and following the same disability criteria, as laid down in this rule in the case of son or daughter of the Government employees or pensioners suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally retarded) or physically crippled or disabled, so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years.”
The first proviso to sub-Rule (6) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, also stipulates that the family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on remarriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension under Sub-Rule (2) of this Rule.
16. Sub-Rule (10-A) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, states that the entitlement of a mother of a deceased employee to receive pension is subject to the qualification that the employee is not survived by a widow or an eligible child. Sub-Rule (10-A) (a) of Rule 54 reads as under:
“(10-A)(a) : Family pension to the parents shall be payable if the parents were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before his or her death and the deceased Government servant is not survived by a widow or an eligible child.” Therefore, when Rule 54 determines the order of priority, it is impermissible for the petitioner to rake up a claim when a widow of the deceased employee was available.
17. Had the employer been made a party to the civil suit, there could have been more clarity on the principle of devolution of the right on various dependents of a deceased employee to claim family pension. Since the Pension Rules determine the order of priority, there is no scope for any deviation. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner appears to be far-fetched.
18. Now, the next question to be considered is whether the widow, on her remarriage giving birth to a child, will lose the benefit of family pension. It is pertinent to mention that remarriage by a widow by itself neither changes her status as a childless widow in the eyes of law nor disentitles her to receive the pension. The pivotal question is that when a widow on remarriage gives birth to a child, will she lose the status of a “childless widow”.
19. The term “family” in relation to a deceased government employee requires a direct proximity to that employee. The post- death relationships are totally irrelevant for determining the entitlement of family pension. A child born in a subsequent marriage has absolutely no legal connection to the deceased government servant. The fact which is to be looked into is as to whether she had any child in the marriage with the deceased employee. Since the 6th respondent did not have any child with the deceased employee, she continues to hold the legal status of “childless widow” under Rule 54. The law explicitly permits a childless widow to continue to draw pension after remarriage, provided her independent income is less than the amount of minimum pension payable under the Rules.
20. That apart, under the statutory hierarchy, the dependent parents belong to a residual category. They can aspire to cross the eligibility threshold only if the employee had left behind no surviving spouse or eligible children. In the present case, since the 6th respondent, the widow of late employee Udayabhanu, is still alive, she holds the primary eligibility for drawing family pension. The petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased employee, cannot claim pension in her place merely because the 6th respondent has a child in the second marriage.
21. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents 1 to 4 were perfectly justified in stopping the payment of family pension to the petitioner until the dispute is resolved appropriately. That apart, this Court finds that the view taken by this Court is supported by the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Smt.Lakshmi Devi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. [2026 DHC 601-DB : WP(C) No.11263/2023 decided on 27.1.2026]. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Resultantly, this Court finds that the writ petition is totally bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
*****