Summary
Since January 1, 1964, there were in force two parallel family pension schemes in operation, namely, (a) a pre- liberalisation scheme which continued to be in force for those who retired prior to 1.1.1964 or those who did not contribute out of the death-cum-retirement gratuity, roughly styled as non-contributory scheme. The other was the contributory scheme. Both these schemes are incorporated in Rule 51 and 55 respectively of the Civil Services Pension Rules 1972. On September 22, 1977 the Government of India done away with the pre-condition of contribution of two months emoluments out of death-cum-retirement gratuity. But, the widows of the Government servants who had not agreed to make the contribution in accordance with the 1964 scheme were denied the benefit of pension scheme and this disability continued even after the changes introduced in 1977 when the scheme ceased to be contributory Such widows moved Supreme Court and Bombay High Court in writ petitions.
The High Court rejected the writ petition Disposing of the petitions and the appeal to this Court,^HELD: 1. Since the family pension scheme has become non-contributory effective from September 22,1977, any attempt at denying its benefit to widows and dependents of Government servants who had not taken advantage of the 1964 liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence violative of Art. 14.If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension scheme without the obligation of making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits of the ground that the Government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not be differently treated because that would be introducing an invidious classification among those who would be entitled to similar treatment. [1046 B-D]1043 2. Where the Government servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension .19 a matter of right. If fact the Court looks upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment old-age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. That is how pension has been looked upon in D.S. Nakara's case, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 165. [1045; G-H 1046 A]See the full content of this document
Extract
Smt. Poonamal Etc. Etc. VS. Union Of India And Ors.
PETITIONER: SMT. POONAMAL ETC. ETC.Vs.RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1985BENCH: DESAI, D.A.BENCH: DESAI, D.A.MISRA RANGNATHCITATION: 1985 AIR 1196 1985 SCR (3)1042 1985 SCC (3) 345 1985 SCALE (1)938CITATOR INFO : F 1989 SC2088 (7,12)RF 1991 SC1182 (20)ACT: Civil Service: Family Pension-Contributories to scheme entitled to family pension- Scheme liberalised-Pre-condition of contribution done away with-Benefit not extended to non- contributories-Whether violates Art. 14 of the Constitution.JUDGMENT: CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 5870- 93/81, ...
See the full content of this document