- (1.) Present appeal, at the hands of defendants, is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for mandatory injunction commanding the defendants to restore the family pension of the plaintiff, was decreed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned judgment, are that Sh. Tulla Ram, husband of the plaintiff was a Central Government servant. After his death his widow Smt. Narmata Devi was provided family pension. Unfortunately, a criminal case under Section 376 and 511 of IPC was registered and she was convicted on 17.12.1985 by the trial Court vide judgment dated 17.12.1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. Her appeal was dismissed. She has undergone sentence. Her pension was withheld. She wrote various letters to the defendants/appellants but of no avail. She is seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore her family pension on the following grounds:- a) Because family pension of the plaintiff cannot be stopped on the ground which has never been stated by the defendants. b) Suo-moto family pension being given to the plaintiff cannot be stopped suddenly without any reason or cause. c) Because the pension is not bounty, so the same cannot be stopped without assigning any reason or cause. d) Because without affording any due and reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff her pension on account of family pension cannot be stopped without giving her advance notice.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants, inter alia, that she had no legal and vested right to claim family pension under the Central Civil Service Pension Rules (in short the Pension Rules), as she had been convicted under Section 376/511 IPC and these offences constituted a moral turpitude. Therefore, she did not maintain good conduct as to remain entitled for family pension. Apart from it, her suit was filed beyond the period of limitation.;