Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 344 (HP)

Uma Devi v. State of HP

2016-03-29

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2011, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.1081 of 2011 titled Uma Devi versus State of HP and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner was relying on the provisions of Rule 54, Government of India’s Decision 20-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which was occupying the field before the amendment was made in the said Rule on 27th December, 2012. It is apt to reproduce Rule 54, Government of India’s Decision 20-A (2) herein. “(20-A) Eligibility of children from a void or voidable marriage for family pension.- The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M. No.1/16/96-P&PW (E), dated 2.12.1996, whereby it was clarified that pensionary benefits will be granted to children of a deceased Government servant/pensioner from void or voidable marriages when their turn comes in accordance with Rule 54 (8). It is mentioned in Para. 4 of the O.M. that “It may be noted that they will have no claim whatsoever to receive family pension as long as the legally wedded wife is the recipient of the same.” (2). The matter has been re-examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) and Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It has been decided that in supersession of Para. 4 of the O.M., ibid, dated 2.12.1996, the share of children from illegally wedded wife in the family pension shall be payable to them in the manner given under sub-rule 7 (c) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension ) Rules, 1972, along with the legally wedded wife. It has also been decided that in past cases, no recovery from the previous beneficiary should be made. On receipt of an application from eligible child/children of the deceased government employee/pensioner born to an ineligible mother, a decision regarding division or otherwise of family pension may be taken by the competent authority after satisfying himself/herself about veracity of facts and entitlement of applicants.” 3. In view of Rule 54, Government of India’s Decision 20-A (2), reproduced above, the judgment is legal and valid one, needs no interference. In view of Rule 54, Government of India’s Decision 20-A (2), reproduced above, the judgment is legal and valid one, needs no interference. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the LPA is dismissed. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Civil Suit is pending between the parties and the judgment made by this Court and the Writ Court may cause prejudice to the rights of the parties. 5. It is made clear that the judgment made by this Court and the Writ Court shall not cause any prejudice to the parties or influence the Civil Courts in any way. 6. Having said so, the LPA is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith pending applications, if any.