Holding

The exclusion of post‑retirement spouses and children born after retirement in Rule 54(14)(b) is ultra vires Article 14 and therefore invalid.

Summary

The widows of two retired government servants—Smt. Bhagwanti (ex‑Subedar) and Smt. Sharda Swamy (retired railway employee)—filed writ petitions under Article 32 seeking family pension after their husbands' deaths. The Union of India denied the pensions, relying on Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which excludes spouses married after retirement and children born after retirement from the definition of "family." The Supreme Court examined whether this exclusion violated the equality clause of Article 14, noting that pension is a benefit for past service and is intended to provide socio‑economic security in old age. Citing precedents such as D.S. Nakara v. Union of India and Smt. Poonamala v. Union of India, the Court held that the distinction is arbitrary, discriminatory and lacks a reasonable classification. Consequently, the Court declared the offending clauses ultra vires Article 14 and directed that family pension be granted to the petitioners and their children from the date of their husbands' deaths. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the exclusion of spouses married after retirement from the definition of "family" under Rule 54(14)(b) is constitutionally valid under Article 14.
Whether children born after the retirement of a government servant are entitled to family pension.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972s. Rule 54(14)(b)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 494

Subjects

family pensionArticle 14central civil services pension rulesdiscriminationultra vireswidow's rightpost‑retirement marriagechildren born after retirement

Judgment

.l
A SMT. BHAGWANTI AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA

AUGUST 29, 1989

& [RANOANATH MISRA AND G,L. OZA, ff]

Cehlral Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972-Rule 54(14)(b)-
'Family'-Definition of-Clauses (i) and (ii) held ultra vires Article
14--SpiJuiies who get married lifter tetii'erhent of Government servant~
Children born aftet retirefnent~Whether erititied to family peiisidn.
·-: ·-
c Constitution of India-Article 14--Rule 54(14) (b )(i) and (ii)- 1
;
Central Civil Services (Pemwn) Rules-Held ultra vires.
i..
tliese two Writ Petitions have been filed by the widows of tile
pelisidliets viz. Smt. haugwanti and Smt. Sharda Swamy, as they have
t> been refused family pension after the demise of their husbands.

SOit. Bliagwlinti is tile widow of an Ex-Subedar of the Indian
Army who retired after sef\tiiill rot 18 yeurs du 3.8.1941. He was given 't
pension. in 1955 liis wife died and in 1965 he married the petitioner.
Tlie Subedat died Iii September 1985 in an accident. The Petitioner
E Snit. Bhligwanti whU has two minor children applied for family pension
but the same was not gtanted to her.

The other Petitioner Smt. Sharda Swamy is the wife of the retired
r11ilway employee. Bet husband took voluntary retirement at the age of
--
F
44 yeaf!I lfi !'iltWeHill~r 1919. The Petitioner married her deceased
iioSbiillil ltt 1!Jll1 ettd has a daughter born to liet in 1984. Petitioner's
husbiiiiil died in 198/i, the petitioner appiied for a faiiiliy pettslon but
"
by ti Mier dat~d 3.8.1~88, slie was informed that b~r application bas
be~u fej~ded. lt was stated tlietein that it has not been found possible to
incllide wife of a Government Servant who bad married after retire-
ment in the dellnltion of "family" for grant offamily pension.
G
Iii the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Union, the stand A
taken in the flrst case is that the pension has been refused as the
marriage was after retirement and in the other case the Union relied on
the dellnition of "family" occurring in Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central
tlvil services (Pension) itdles 1912, which speaks of marriage before
l:i retirement.
1010
SMT. BHAGWANTI v. U.0.1 1011
J The common stand taken thus by the Union is that family pension
A
would not be admissible to spouses who get married after the retire•
ment of the Government servant nor to children born after retirement.

Allowing the Writ Petitions this Court
i HELD: Pension is payable, as pointed out iii several Jlldgiiieiits ~
of this Court, oil the consideration of past service feniiereif· tiy the·
- '
' '· .. - . .

-
Government servant. Pay ability of the family pension is basically on the
self-same consideration. Since pension is linked with past SOi"viCe and
the avowed purpose of the Pension Rules is W pto•ide sosteriaiice in oid
7'-
age, distinction between marriage during service and marriage after
retirement appears to be indeed arbitrary. [10141i•i01Slt]
., -.·. c
..
\
Admittedly, the definition of "family" as it stands after amerid•
ritent excludes the spouse of the Government servant who has got riuir•
ded to such Government servant after hisjher retirement and the
children born after retirement also stand excluded. [1014F]
b
In most cases, marriage after retirement is done to provide pro-
tection, secure companionship and to secure support in old agl!, [j(liSC]

-< The consideration upon which pension proper is admissible or the
benefit of the family pension bas been extended do not justify the dis-
tinction envisaged in the deflJlition of "family" by keeping the post- E
retiral spouse out of it, [I015D]

The two limitations iricorporated in the definition of "family"
suffer froni the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination arid caririot be
1 supported by nexus or reasonable dassificatiiin. [iOi6Di
F
The words "provided the marriage took place before retireliierii
of the Government servant" in clause (I) arid "but shail not ini:lllde son
or daughter born after retirement" in . clause (ii) are t_hiis ultra
. viies
.,; Article 14 of the Constitution and caiiuot be sustained. [10161':]

D.S. Nakara.& Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2SCR165; beoki G
).. Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Suppl. SCR 634; Smt.
Poonamalv. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 3 SCR 1042; referred io.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 1128 and 1204
of 1988;
H
lOU SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
..\
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
A
Mrs. S. Ramachandran for the Petitioners.

V.C. Mahajan, Ms. A. Subhashini and Ms. Kusum Chaudhary
for the Respondents.
'r
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c
RANGANATH MISRA, J. Each of these two wtit petitions
under Article 32 of the Constitution is by the widow of the respective
pensioners. Since family pension under the Rules has not been given to
them, they have asked for a mandamus to the respondent-Union of
-~ -
India to grant such pension in terms of the pension scheme applicable J r
to the category to which the husbands of the respective petitioners
belonged.

Petitioner Smt. Bhagwanti is the widow of an ex-Subedar of the
D Indian Army. Her husband after serving for 18 years retired on
3.8.1947 and was given pension. In 1955, his wife died and in 1965 he
was married to the petitioner. The Subedar died in September, 1985 in
an accident. Petitioner who has two minor children applied for family
pension and the same has not been granted. >-
E The petitioner in the connected writ petition is the wife of a
retired Railway employee. Her husband took voluntary retirement at
the age of 44 in November, 1979. Petitioner got married to her
husband in 1981 and has a daughter born in 1984 out of the said
wedlock. Petitioner's husband died in 1986. The petitioner applied for
family pension but by a letter dated 3rd of August, 1988, her applica· .·~
F tion was rejected by saying: 'It has not been found possible to include
wife of a Government servant who had married after retirement in the
definition of 'family' for grant of family pension'.

Counter-affidavits.have been filed in both the writ petitions. In
the first case, in the· return made by Captain N.K. Vishwakarma from
G the Office of Records AMC, Lucknow in paragraph A, it has been
stated that pension has been refused as petitioner's marriage was after .....
retirement of the Subedar. In the connected matter, the Senior
Personnel Manager of the South-Central Railway has placed reliance
on the definition of 'family' .occurring in Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central
Civil Services (Pension) 8:ules, 1972. As far as relevant, the definition
H reads thus:
SMT. BHAGWANTI v. U.0.I [MISRA, J.] 101~

"(b ). 'Family' in relation to a Goyemment servant A
means-

(i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or
husband in the case of a female Government servant, pro-
i vided the marriage took place before retirement of the
Government servant. .8

- .......................................... ·: ....... .
(ii) son who has not attained the age of twenty-one
years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age
of thirty years, including such son and daughter adopted
legally before retirement but shall not' include son or c
daughter born after retirement."

The common stand of the Union of India in the two cases, there-
fore, is that family pension would not be admissible to spouses who get
married after the retirement of the Government servant, nor to o
children born after such retirement.

The only question for consideration in these two writ petitions
therefore, has two facets: (i) whether the spouse-man or woman, as
the case may be-married after the retirement of the concerned
Government servant can be kept out of the definition so as to deprive E
... him from the benefit of the family pension, and (ii) whether off-springs
born after retirement are entitled to benefits of such pension.

""- In D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983) 2 SCR 165, a
'1 Constitution Bench of this Court at p. 185 of the Reports observed:
F
" . . . . . . . . . pension is not only compensation for loyal
servici: rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader
signifi:ance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic
justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life
when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding
to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back G
on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your
best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of
invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment
is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated
allowanc<y or stipend made in consideration of past service
or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from H
~014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.

service. Thus the pension payable to be a Government
A
employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service
and, therefore, can be said to be a deferred portion of the
compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one
can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is
the inability to provide for oneself due to old age ...... "
B
In Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1971] Suppl. SCR
634, it was held by this Court:

"The payment of pension does not depend upon the discre-
tion of the Government but is governed by the relevant
rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules
-
c can claim it as a matter of right."

In Smt. Poonamal v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] 3 SCR 1042, it was
pointed out:

D "Where the Government servant rendered service, to com-
pensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the
widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitle,d
to family pension as a matter of right. In fact we look upon
pension not merely as a statutory right but as i:he fulfilment
of a constitutional promise in as much 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 constitu-
tional mandate. That is how pension has been looked upon
in D.S. Nakara's judgment."

F Admittedly, the definition of 'family' as it stands after amend-
ment excludes that scope of the Government servant who has got
married to such Government servant after his/her retirement and the
children born after retirement also stand excluded. Petitioners have
challe,n,ged the stand of the Union of India and the definition in the
Pension Rules as arbitrary and discriminatory. It has been contended
G that if family pension is payable to the widow or the husband as the
case may be, of the Government servant, the category which the
definition keeps out, namely, those who have married after retire-
ment and offsprings of regular marriage born after retirement, is
discriminatory.

,H Pension is payable, as pointed out in several judgments of this
SMT. BfiAGWANTI v. ~. (H !MISRA, .J.J l(l15
)_ Court, on the consideration pf. past seryice rendered by ·the .O!'wem-
A
ment servant. Payability of the family pension is basically on the self:
same consideration. Since pension is linked with past service and the
avowed puipose of the Pension Rules is to provide sustenance in old
age, distinction between marriage during service .and marriage after
retirement appears to be indeed arbitrary. There are instances where a
-'i Government servant contracts his first marriage after retirement. In B
these two cases before us, retirement had been at an early age. In the
Subedar's case, he had retired after putting in 18 years of service and
the Railway employee had retired prematurely at the age of 44: Pre-
::.:,-
mature or early retirement has indeed no relevance for deciding the
r point at issue. It is not the case of the Union of India and, perhaps
there would have been no force in such contention if raised, that
) family pension is admissible on .account of the fact that the spouse
c
.contributed to the efficiency of the Government servant during his
servic.e career. In most cases, marriage after retirement is done to
provide protection, secure companionship and to secure support in old
age. The consideration upon which pension proper is admissible or the
benefit of the family pension h.as been extended do not justify the j)
distinction envisaged in the definition of 'family' by keeping the post,
retiral spouse out of it.

-\ Government Servants Conduct .Rules prohibit marriage during
the life-time of a spouse. Section 494 of ~he Indian Penal Code makes
second marriage void and makes it a criminal offence. Thereafter, E
both before retirement and even after retirement there is no scope for
... a P~Eson to have a second wife or a husband. as ·the case may be, during
the life-time of an existing spouse.

J Reliance has been placed on the ·recommendations of the Third
Pay Commission on the basis of which 1the amendl)'lent in the Pension F
Rules is said to have been made. Apart .from ,refe.rring to the recoin-
meµdations, no attempt has been made at the hearing by counsel for
the ·Union of India to derive support from the recommendations. We
. really see no justification as to why post-retirement marriages .should
have been kept out of the purview of the definition.
G
In clause (ii) of the definition son or daughter born after retire-
J... ment even out <if wedlock prior to retirement have been excluded from
the definition. No plausible explanation has ·been placed for our con-
.sideration for this exclusion. The purpose for which :faJnily pension is
provided, as indicated in Smt. Poona171fl/'s case, . js jhistrated .if
children born ·after retirement are exclu<led from ·the 1b.e.n!)fit ,of ·the !l;I
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R.
1.,
A family pension. Prospect of children being born at such advanced age
(keeping the age of normal superannuation in view) is minimal but for
the few that may be born after the retirement, family pension would be
most necessary as in the absence thereof,. in the event of death of the
Government servant such minor children would go without support.
The social purpose which was noticed in some pension cases by this )r
B
Court would not justify the stand taken by the Union of India in the
counter-affidavit. It is not the case of the Union Government that as a
matter of public policy to contain the growth of population, the defini-
tion has been so modified. Even if such a contention had been
advanced it would not have stood logical scrutiny on account of the
position that the Government servant may not have any child prior to ~
--
c retirement and in view of the accepted public policy that a couple ~
could have children upto two, the only child born after superannuation
.should not be denied family pension.
•
Considered from any angle, we are of the view that the two
limitations incorporated in the definition of 'family' suffer from the
D vice of arbitrariness and discrimination and cannot be supported by
nexus or reasonable classification. The words 'provided the marriage
took place before retirement of the Government servant' in clause (i)
and 'but shall not include son or daughter born after retirement' in
clause (ii) are thus ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot >-
be sustained.
E
The writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Union of India
shall have a direction to extend to each of the petitioners in the two
writ petitions family pension as admissible under the respective
schemes from the date the husband of each of petitioners died.
~
F Since these writ petitions were instituted on the basis of letters
received by the Court and treated as public interest litigation and were
supported by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee through their
counsel, there shall be no order as to costs.

Y. Lal Petitions allowed.

, .....