Family Feud Over Funds: High Court Addresses Pension Rights After Soldier's Death

 


Introduction

This civil writ petition, numbered 12689 of 2021, was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The case concerns a dispute over the disbursement of financial benefits following the death of Jitendra Kumar Gupta, a constable with the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). The petitioner, Raj Kumari Devi, the mother of the deceased, sought the court's intervention to secure a portion of the financial benefits, which were primarily granted to the deceased's widow. The court's judgment addresses the legal framework governing the distribution of such benefits and the rights of the dependents of a deceased government employee.

Parties Involved

  • Petitioner: Raj Kumari Devi, the mother of the deceased, Jitendra Kumar Gupta.
  • Respondents:
    • The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
    • The Director General of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), New Delhi.
    • Inspector General, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Frontier Patna, Frontier Hqrs, Patna.
    • Commandant, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Frontier Hqrs, Patna.
    • 2nd Command Officer (Welfare), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Frontier Hqrs, Patna.
    • Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Frontier Hqrs, Patna.

Factual Background

Jitendra Kumar Gupta was employed as a Constable (GD) in the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). He was initially appointed on February 8, 2014, and served in various locations before being transferred to Frontier Hq., Patna. Tragically, he passed away on duty on May 10, 2021, due to complications arising from COVID-19.

Following his death, the SSB authorities disbursed various financial benefits to his widow, Pooja Kumari. These benefits included an ex-gratia sum, funds from Bharat Ke Vir Nidhi, and the Staff Benevolent Fund, totaling a substantial amount.

Raj Kumari Devi, the deceased's mother, argued that she and her family were in dire financial circumstances and were dependent on her deceased son. She contended that at least 50% of the financial benefits should be allocated to her to support herself, her aged husband, and her younger children. She stated that her daughter-in-law, Pooja Kumari, had left the matrimonial home, leaving the family in distress.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents, represented by their counsel, countered the petitioner's claims by referring to the service records of the deceased and the applicable rules governing the disbursement of financial benefits. They stated that Pooja Kumari was the legally wedded wife and the designated nominee of the deceased. Therefore, as per the rules, she was entitled to receive the death-cum-retiral benefits and other financial assistance.

The respondents specifically cited Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which outlines the provisions for family pension. They argued that the rules primarily prioritize the widow and eligible children of the deceased for pensionary benefits. While the rules do provide for family pension to dependent parents in certain circumstances, this is only applicable if the deceased employee is not survived by a widow or eligible children.

The respondents also highlighted that the deceased had nominated his wife, Pooja Kumari, in the relevant forms for receiving death-cum-retirement gratuity and benefits under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980. They further stated that the petitioner's request to stop payment to Pooja Kumari and allocate 50% of the benefits to her had been duly considered and rejected.

Court's Observations and Decision

The High Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant rules and precedents. The court noted that Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, specifies that family pension is payable to the widow until remarriage. Rule 54(21) clarifies that parents are included in the definition of 'family' for pension purposes only if the deceased employee did not leave behind a widow or child.

The court also took note of the nomination papers filed by the deceased, which clearly designated his wife, Pooja Kumari, as the nominee to receive all death-cum-retiral benefits.

Based on these considerations, the High Court concluded that the applicable laws and rules governing the disbursement of death-cum-retiral benefits and pensionary benefits prioritize the widow and children of the deceased employee. The parents are entitled to receive such benefits only if the deceased did not leave behind a widow or child, which was not the case here.

The court also referred to the SOP for compassionate appointment, which defines "Dependent Family Member" and does not include parents if a spouse or children exist.

Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it. The court upheld the decision to grant the financial benefits to the deceased's widow, Pooja Kumari, as per the applicable rules and the deceased's nomination.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reaffirms the established legal principles and rules governing the disbursement of financial benefits to the dependents of deceased government employees. It clarifies the priority given to the widow and children in such matters, while also acknowledging the rights of dependent parents in specific circumstances where no widow or children survive the deceased. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rules and the deceased employee's expressed wishes through nomination, ensuring a fair and legally sound distribution of benefits,

.Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTI2ODkjMjAyMSMxI04=-vS92GhzIToM=