The Delhi High Court has ruled that a widowed or divorced daughter shall be considered an “eligible dependent” under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme. This decision is in line with the legal principle of providing financial support to those who are dependent on the freedom fighter and have been negatively impacted by their absence. This ruling serves as a reminder of the court’s commitment to ensuring that the rights and benefits of all eligible individuals are protected under the law.
“The expression “unmarried” adverts to a person who is not married. It includes a woman who is single i.e., who was married but divorced and even a woman who is widowed,” the court said.
The court noted that according to the 2014 guidelines outlined in para 6.2.1, a daughter of a freedom fighter is excluded from the category of an eligible dependent if she remarries. The guidelines state that dependent pension will be transferred to the widow or unmarried daughter of the pensioner, and that pension payments will be terminated if the wife or daughter of the deceased pensioner remarries. This guideline serves as a legal precedent in determining eligibility for dependent pensions in such cases.
The court noted that according to Para 3 of the Scheme, “eligible dependents” include the spouse, unmarried and unemployed daughters, mother, or father. The court also observed that the exclusion of a widow from the category of eligible dependents, once she remarries, is not consistent with Para 3 of the 1980 Scheme, which does not contain such a limitation. This observation highlights the discrepancy between the current guidelines and those outlined in the 1980 Scheme, and serves as a legal precedent in determining the eligibility of dependents in such cases.
“Therefore, in our view, the 1980 Scheme did not contemplate exclusion of widowed daughters, as is sought to be contended on behalf of UOI. The 2014 Guidelines were framed to clarify the 1980 Scheme and not amend it,” the court said.
The court stated that there is a significant likelihood that the 2014 guidelines, which exclude a widow of a deceased freedom fighter from the category of dependent persons if she remarries, but do not extend the same exclusion to a widower, would be deemed violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if challenged in court. This legal assessment highlights the potential constitutional issues with the current guidelines and serves as a warning to those interpreting and implementing them.
“In other words, if a freedom fighter was a woman, and if she was to pass away, then, even if the husband was to remarry, he could still avail the pension under the 1980 Scheme. There is a distinct possibility of para 6.2.2 of the 2014 Guidelines being declared violative of Article 14 of the constitution, if it were to be challenged,” it said.
The court observed that the provision in question, which states that the re-marriage clause does not apply to a widower who is receiving dependent pension on account of his deceased wife who was a freedom fighter, is found in para 6.2.2 of the 2014 Guidelines. The court deemed this provision as “inexplicable” and noted that it creates a discrepancy between the treatment of widows and widowers in regards to their eligibility for dependent pension. This observation highlights the potential issues with the current guidelines and serves as a legal precedent in determining the eligibility of dependents in such cases.
The court made the above-mentioned observations during the review of an appeal filed by the Central Government against an order passed by a single judge on August 10, 2021. The single judge had overturned a communication dated February 12, 2020 issued by the Central Government, which denied the request of Indira Kumari for pension under the 1980 Scheme. The government was also ordered to reassess the grant of pension, provided that all other conditions outlined in the Scheme are met. This ruling serves as a reminder of the court\’s commitment to ensuring that the rights and benefits of all eligible individuals are protected under the law.
In this case, Indira Kumari passed away on October 2, 2021. The Central Government filed an appeal on November 15, 2021. During the first day of the hearing, the government stated that the benefits of the Scheme would be extended to Kumari. However, the government later filed a review petition on January 11, and an application was filed by Kumari’s daughter as her legal representative. The court dismissed the appeal of the Central Government and ordered that Kumari’s daughter would receive pension from the date of her application until the date of Kumari\’s death. This ruling serves as a legal precedent for the distribution of pension benefits to the legal representatives of deceased eligible individuals.
“The UOI will ensure that the monetary benefit is extended to the legal representative of the deceased respondent Ms Indira Kumari, if otherwise there is no impediment under the 1980 Scheme, within the next six weeks,” the court directed.
The court cited the ruling of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Khajani Devi v. Union of India and Others (2016) in which it was determined that the term “unmarried daughter” includes a divorced daughter. The court also noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the appeal filed by the Central Government against this ruling on the basis of its merit. This serves as legal precedence for the interpretation of the term “unmarried daughter” in determining eligibility for benefits under the scheme.
“We see no reason not to extend the benefit of the 1980 Scheme to a widowed/divorced daughter. We respectfully agree with the view enunciated by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Kamlesh’s case, as well as the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Sonali Hatua Giri’s case,” the court said.
The court also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) is currently pending before the Supreme Court in the case of Tulsi Devi v. Union of India and Anr, challenging a 2019 judgment of a division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. This serves as a reminder that the ruling of the court is not necessarily the final ruling on the matter, as there is a possibility for an appeal to a higher court for further review.
“Thus, at the moment, the only clear view that we have is that of the Supreme Court in Khajani Devi’s case. The ratio of this judgement is binding on all courts including this court. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and the view expressed by the Supreme Court Khajani Devi’s case, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge,” the court said.
Title: UNION OF INDIA v. KOLLI UDAY KUMARI
