Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose when Laxmi Kunwar, the widow of Tej Dan, sought a family pension after her husband's death. Tej Dan, who had served as a patwari in the State of Rajasthan, retired on June 30, 1980, and married Laxmi Kunwar on March 8, 1987. Following his death, the Rajasthan Government denied her claim for family pension, citing that their marriage occurred after his retirement, thus disqualifying her under the relevant rules. Laxmi Kunwar filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for the grant of family pension. The State of Rajasthan, in its counter-affidavit, referenced Rule 268-D of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which defined 'family' and explicitly excluded marriages occurring after retirement from its scope. The court noted that a similar issue had been addressed in the case of Smt Bhagwanti v. Union of India, where a part of the rule excluding post-retirement marriages was struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court adopted this reasoning, declaring the exclusion arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to process the family pension claim for Laxmi Kunwar, disregarding the invalidated rule. The court ordered that the pension be finalized within three months and all arrears be paid within one month thereafter, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 Violation - Arbitrary Exclusion of Post-Retirement Marriage - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The court found that the exclusion of marriages after retirement from the definition of 'family' in the Rajasthan Service Rules was arbitrary and violated the right to equality. The court adopted reasoning from a previous case and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for family pension without regard to the struck down rule. Held that the petitioner is entitled to family pension (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension despite marrying after the retirement of her husband.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, directing the State of Rajasthan to consider the petitioner's claim for family pension without regard to the struck down rule. The court ordered the pension to be finalized within three months and all arrears to be paid within one month thereafter.
Law Points
- Family pension entitlement
- arbitrary rules
- Article 14 violation
- definition of family
- retrospective application of rules
