- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of H.P And Another v. Kedar Nath Sood And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The first respondent, an 80-year-old father whose son—a government servant—had died in service, applied for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In Civil Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1995 the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the State authorities to grant that pension. The Government challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14081 of 1996, along with a connected appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19282 of 1996.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the father of a deceased government servant comes within the definition of “family” under Rule 54(14)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and is therefore entitled to family pension.
- Whether the High Court correctly relied on precedent in granting family pension to the first respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Gujarat, through Chief Secretary v. Savitri Devi (1996) 1 SCC 558 | Clarified that only relatives expressly enumerated in the pension rules (widow, minor sons, unmarried daughters, etc.) qualify for family pension; parents are excluded. | The Court relied on this decision to hold that the father, like the mother in Savitri Devi, is not a member of the “family” for purposes of Rule 54 and therefore cannot claim family pension. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court scrutinised Rule 54(14)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and found that the definition of “family” does not include the father of a deceased employee. The High Court’s reliance on Savitri Devi was deemed misplaced; that very precedent, properly read, excludes parents from pension eligibility.
Recognising the respondent’s hardship, the Court nevertheless held that statutory text could not be stretched to confer benefits not contemplated by the rule. In equity, however, it directed the Government to make an ex gratia payment of ₹10,000 to the respondent and urged consideration of rule amendments for similar future situations.
Holding and Implications
HELD: The High Court’s order granting family pension is set aside and the appeals are allowed. The first respondent is not entitled to family pension under Rule 54(14)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Implications: The respondent will receive an ex gratia payment of ₹10,000, and sums already paid under the High Court’s judgment will not be recovered. The decision reaffirms the strict statutory definition of “family” for pension purposes while signalling a need for legislative or regulatory change; no new precedent beyond existing rule interpretation is established.
Order
CA No. 14081 of 1996
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1888 of 1995 dated 8-12-1995.
2. By the judgment under appeal, the High Court had directed the appellants to grant family pension to the first respondent herein. Undoubtedly, this is a hard case. Having regard to the facts, strictly speaking, the Government should have come forward to the rescue of the first respondent, but, unfortunately, that was not done.
3. The High Court, purporting to follow a decision of this Court, has granted pension which does not appear to be the correct position. The relevant rule for grant of family pension in this case will be Rule 54(14)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, according to which the father will not be a member of the family or dependent to get the family pension. This fact is also not disputed. Interpreting a similar rule, this Court in State of Gujarat, through Chief Secy. v. Savitri Devi (1996) 1 SCC 558 has observed as follows:
“5. A reading thereof clearly indicates that the family consists of the relatives, namely, the widow (if he happens to be married) of the deceased in case of male government servant and husband in case of female government servant and minor sons and unmarried or minor daughter. In the case of the children, legally adopted children, before retirement/death also would become members of the family. If the widow remarries, she becomes disentitled to the pension as she ceases to be the member of the family. Obviously, for this reason, the widow Savitri Devi was not given pension after her remarriage in 1976.
6. The question is whether mother is a dependant. In view of the express definition of the family, mother has not been included as a member of the family to claim any family pension from the Government, much less after the maximum period of ten years. Under these circumstances, in either event, the decree of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court and second appeal, are clearly illegal.”
4. In the light of the above decision of this Court, the order granting pension cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. However, on the facts, namely, that the first respondent is a man of 80 years of age who has lost his young son and there is nobody to look after him, no one entitled to pension under the rule, we are inclined to direct the appropriate Government on these special facts and circumstances to pay to the first respondent a sum of Rs 10,000 as ex gratia in addition to the payments already made.
5. We may also indicate that it is time for the Government to consider the amendment of the Rules to cover the situation similar to the one that appear in this case. The appropriate Government will pay to the first respondent an ex gratia of Rs 10,000 within two months. It is made clear that the amounts already paid in terms of the High Court judgment shall not be recovered or adjusted.
CA No. … of 1998 @ SLP (C) No. 19282 of 1996
6. Leave granted.
7. For the reasons stated in the order in Civil Appeal No. 14081 of 1996, the order under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. However, as observed in the other case, the first respondent as well deserves an ex gratia payment of Rs 10,000 on the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we direct the appropriate Government to pay a sum of Rs 10,000 to the respondent within two months. The amount, if any, already paid pursuant to the High Court order shall not be recovered or adjusted.
Alert