HC: Parents entitled to family pension after widow's remarriage
The bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma directed Union of India to grant family pension to Shankari Devi, 83, while setting aside a decades-old rejection order making her ineligible.
The court directed the Union government to consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of family pension, strictly in terms of Sub-clause 10 of Rule 50 of the Rules, which makes parents entitled for pension after remarriage of a widow.
The petitioner apprised the HC that Shankari Devi's son Lekh Ram joined BSF in 1979. In 1985, Lekh Ram got married to Suraksha, but after 10 days of marriage, Lekh Ram expired under mysterious circumstances. On account of services rendered by Lekh Ram, family pension was initially allowed in favour of widow Suraksha. But as in 1990, Suraksha married again in December 1990, she became ineligible for family pension. Suraksha herself apprised the department in writing that she is not drawing family pension since 1990 after remarriage.
After remarriage of Surkasha, Shankari Devi and her husband Sita Ram (who died during pendency of petition), applied for family pension, but such prayer never came to be accepted on the pretext that parents of deceased employees were not entitled to family pension. Thus they moved the HC pleading that since their daughter-in-law had stopped taking family pension after remarriage in 1990, they ought to have been granted family pension, but for no justifiable reasons, she was denied her legitimate right in August 1999.
The HC while quashing this order issued by the BSF's Pay and Accounts Division, directed Union government to 'consider the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of family pension, strictly in terms of Sub-clause 10 of Rule 50 of the Rules, which makes parents entitled for pension after remarriage of widow'.
'Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful claim for years together coupled with the fact that petitioner is 83 years old, this court hopes and trusts that needful at the behest of the Union government shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks, by affording due opportunity of hearing,' read the court order while adding, 'In case, Shankari Devi is found eligible for family pension, she shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years prior to filing of the petition'.
The Union government is directed to file compliance within three weeks, after expiry of six weeks granted by this court for doing the needful.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bombay high court fines ex-deputy education director Rs 5L for withholding teacher's pension
Mumbai: Bombay high court imposed Rs 5 lakh cost on Sandeep Sangve, former deputy director of education (DDE), Mumbai region, for depriving a retired college teacher of pensionary benefits and directed him to pay the amount "from his pocket" to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund. Justices Ajey Gadkari and Milind Sathaye on July 24 said if the cost is not paid by Sangve, in that event, it shall be deducted from his salary. Five days after Sangve's transfer to BMC last month, he was suspended and an inquiry ordered into allegations against him as DDE. The School Education Department and DDE sought a review of HC's July 18, 2024, order to pay Anil Athawale pension under the old pension scheme (OPS) applicable to part-time teachers. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai | Gold Rates Today in Mumbai | Silver Rates Today in Mumbai Athawale was part-time teacher at B N Bandodkar Science College, Thane, from June 2000 till June 2007 and thereafter full-time till his retirement on May 31, 2024. DDE's June 2023 order said that he was not entitled to OPS as he was appointed full-time after the Nov 1, 2005, cutoff date. The judges said the only ground raised in the review petition, affirmed by Sangve, was that "facts regarding breakage in service" were not pointed to HC. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo Sangve was now "raising a specious plea". The assistant govt pleader (AGP), who also appeared on July 18, 2024, put "substantial efforts" in defending the govt. Pleadings of both sides and record was considered before the order was passed. The judges said "breakage in service" was not even the reason for the June 2023 passed by "the same Mr Sandeep Sangve". Senior advocate Narendra Bandiwadekar, for Athawale, informed that in Oct 2024, the high court in 11 contempt petitions imposed Rs 3.3 lakh cost on Sangve for non-compliance of orders. The judges said "the officer appears to be habitual in violating" HC orders and "has scant respect for law of the land". Bandiwadekar said after Athawale pressed contempt for non-compliance of the July 2024 order, the review petition was filed. The judges said it clearly appears that Sangve with a "mala fide" intention directed the AGP to file it only to harass Athawale "none else". Athawale "as of today is struggling for his lawful pensionary benefits". He is entitled to it under OPS as per HC's order with interest from retirement date. "However the respondent (Athawale), a citizen of India, has been deprived of his legitimate dues due to the obstinate stand adopted by Sandeep Sangve... a govt servant," they said. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Child's right to know parentage outweighs father's privacy: HC
C handigarh: In a legal dispute balancing individual privacy against the right to know one's parentage, the Punjab and Haryana high court ruled that the latter takes precedence. "The right of privacy, as such, cannot override the right of the child and vest interest in his favour," the HC has held. The court also clarified that if the person refused to undergo DNA testing, the trial court would be free to draw an adverse inference based on his conduct and other evidence. "Why should there be any hesitation to undergo this test is not coming forth," the HC observed, noting that photographs and testimonies already on record suggested familial ties. A DNA test would provide clarity and assist the court in reaching the right conclusion without leaving the matter to presumptions, the HC clarified. Justice Archana Puri passed these orders while upholding an order dated Nov 27, 2015, passed by a lower court in Haryana directing a DNA test in a long-running paternity dispute. The petitioner in this case had approached the HC challenging the lower court's order. The case stems from a suit filed by a child (who has now attained majority) who consistently asserted that he is the biological son of a man (identity protected) and his mother. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo The man, whom the boy referred to as his father, however, persistently denied the claim, terming the boy a "stranger" and resisting any attempt to establish paternity through scientific means. The boy's claim traces back to events in 1988 when, according to him, his mother and the man began cohabiting as husband and wife, while the man was living in her mother's house as a tenant. The boy was born from that relationship in 1990 and lived with both until 2000. Supporting him, the woman admitted to the relationship and backed her son's plea. However, the petitioner argued that the boy was born during the woman's earlier marriage with her then husband, from whom she obtained a divorce in 1994. He cited Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes the legitimacy of a child born within wedlock, to oppose compulsory DNA testing. The HC, however, observed that unlike cases where a spouse resists parenthood during the subsistence of marriage, this matter involved an adult child seeking to establish his own parentage. In such circumstances, Section 112's presumption of legitimacy cannot override the child's right to know the truth of his origins. "So far as the stakeholders are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the child, who asserts defendant No.1 to be his father, is major and while asserting paternity, he is thus very well aware of the consequences of the order, which may downsize his position and that of his mother in the society. Even the mother of the plaintiff is of mature age and she is bound to be well aware of the consequences of the action of her son and his claim regarding the paternity issue. They having come forward unhesitatingly has to be considered," observed the HC while dismissing the revision petition challenging the lower court order. The HC further clarified that the DNA test is a surer test to affix the paternity. If the boy and the man are strangers in any manner as asserted, no injustice shall be done to defendant No.1 by conducting this test. Rather, if he is the father, his position will be put beyond doubt by the testing and the paternity as pleaded shall be ascertained. "Why there should be any hesitation to undergo this test is not coming forth. Of course, the evidence is to be led by both sides, but the question arises, when the paternity can be affixed by a surer test, then why a decision based on legal presumption or gathering of inference, on the basis of the evidence or any gap, on account of misjudgment, be left," the HC held in its detailed order dated Aug 12. MSID:: 123333468 413 | Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Fishermen blame Centre; to go ahead with rail blockade agitation in Ramanathapuram district
Blaming the Union government squarely for the arrests and impounding of trawlers by Sri Lankan Navy, the Tamil Nadu fishermen on Saturday said that they would intensify their agitations. The fishermen have not been venturing into the sea for the last week due to the 'continued' arrests under charges of poaching. On Independence Day, they observed a token fast in Thangachimadam with families and children. On Saturday, the Ramanathapuram district administration had invited the striking fishers for a talk. However, it failed, they claimed. Speaking to media persons, fishermen leaders Emerit, Jesu Raj and among others said that the Union government had not taken any tangible steps to solve the issue with Sri Lankan government over the last five years or a decade. As a result, hundreds of fishermen were arrested and trawlers impounded. Under such circumstances, they told the officials that without any assurance from the governments, they would not withdraw the stir. In the last two months alone, 64 fishermen were arrested. On top of it, the fishermen were also jailed for six months to two years depending on the charges of repeating the offence. Hence, they announced to go ahead with the rail blockade stir on August 19.
