Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent, the aged mother of a deceased police constable, seeking family pension after the widow's pension was stopped upon her remarriage. The deceased, Lal Singh, had served as a constable in the Gujarat State Reserve Police and had been recruited in 1965. After his death, his widow Savitri was granted family pension, but she contracted a second marriage in 1976. Consequently, the State of Gujarat stopped paying pension to the widow. In 1987, the respondent mother, Sarti Devi, instituted a suit for family pension in the court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Mohindergarh, Haryana. The trial court decreed the suit. The State's appeal before the District Court was accompanied by an application for condonation of 107 days' delay, which was refused, yet the District Court confirmed the trial court's decree. The State's second appeal was dismissed in limine by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 17 December 1994 in RSA No.1660/94. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Two principal questions arose: first, whether the Haryana courts had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for pension against the State of Gujarat; and second, whether the respondent mother was entitled to family pension under the Gujarat Government's Revised Family Pension Scheme, 1972. The State contended that under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the suit could only be instituted where the defendants ordinarily reside or where the cause of action arose; since the State's offices were in Gujarat and no part of the cause of action arose in Haryana, the Haryana courts lacked jurisdiction. The State further argued that under the 1972 scheme, the definition of 'family' included only the widow, husband, minor sons, and unmarried or minor daughters of the deceased government servant, along with children adopted legally before retirement or death; it did not include the mother. Since the widow had remarried, she ceased to be a member of the family, and the mother could not claim pension. The Supreme Court accepted these submissions. It held that neither consent nor waiver could confer territorial jurisdiction, and the decree passed by the Haryana court was a complete nullity. On the merits, the Court observed that the mother was not included in the express definition of 'family' under the 1972 scheme, and therefore she was not entitled to any family pension, particularly after the maximum period of ten years. However, taking note of the respondent's age of eighty-five years and dependence on her deceased son, the Court, without treating the order as a precedent, directed the State to pay an ex gratia sum of Rs.6,000 within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the appeal was disposed of without costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 20 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for family pension against State of Gujarat instituted in Haryana court though no part of cause of action arose in Haryana and State offices were in Gujarat; consent or waiver cannot confer jurisdiction - Held decree passed by Haryana court without territorial jurisdiction was nullity and set aside (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Family Pension - Gujarat Government Revised Family Pension Scheme, 1972, Rule 3 definition of 'family' - Widow of deceased government servant remarried in 1976 and thus ceased to be member of family; mother not included in definition of family under the scheme - Held respondent mother not entitled to family pension; appeal allowed and courts below set aside; ex gratia of Rs.6,000 directed in peculiar facts (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Haryana courts had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for family pension against the State of Gujarat; whether the mother of a deceased government servant was entitled to family pension under the Gujarat Government Revised Family Pension Scheme, 1972.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of; decree of courts below set aside; State directed to pay Rs.6,000 as ex-gratia within two months from receipt of order; no costs.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC cannot be conferred by consent or waiver
- decree without jurisdiction is nullity
- family pension scheme definition of family excludes mother
- widow remarriage disentitles pension
- ex-gratia payment without precedent
