STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHATERDEVI RAMNIVAS SANWALRAM
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF GUJARAT
BHATERDEVI RAMNIVAS SANWALRAM
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The husband of the respondent joined police service under the appellants as constable on 15th of January, 1977. He died in harness on 12th December, 1980 leaving behind the respondent and her two children. At the time of his death he had put in total service of about 3 years and 10 months as constable. The respondent made several representations for grant of family pension to her but without any success. As a result of denial of family pension a civil suit was filed by her claiming declaration that she was entitled to receive family pension. The said suit was dismissed on 21st September, 1990. The first appeal and second appeal therefrom were also dismissed.
(2.)The judgment of the High Court dismissing the second appeal was challenged by filing a Special Leave Petition before this Court. Along with it, a writ petition was also filed by the respondent under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India claiming the relief of family pension and also challenging the eligibility criteria for grant of family pension as laid down in the Government Resolution dated 1st January, 1972. The said Resolution relaxed the minimum period of service so as to be entitled to the benefit of family pension. The 1972 Resolution of Government of Gujarat notices that under the existing orders (The Revised Pension Rules, 1950, as amended) a Government servant has to complete service of not less than 10 years, in order to become eligible for family pension and on review a fresh scheme has been drawn for family pension for the State Government service. It stipulated that the family pension under the scheme would be admissible in case of death while in service on or after 1st June, 1971 provided a Government servant has completed a minimum of five years of continuous service on the date of death. Thus, the eligibility period for minimum continuous service stood reduced from 10 years to five years. In Art. 32 petition, the respondent also challenged the validity of fixing of any period so as to be entitled to benefit of family pension.
(3.)The Special Leave Petition and the Writ Petition were dismissed by this Court on 16th August, 1994 and the following order was passed :
We do not find any ground to grant the relief for family pension claimed by the petitioner. We may however observe that in case such a benefit is being granted to any other person similarly situate then the authorities may consider the petitioners case also for grant of similar relief.
Special Leave Petition and the Writ Petition are dismissed with the above observations.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.