Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that cause of action for family pension accrues only on demise of the Government servant.                

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Kumkum Dania v. Shri Kul Bhushan Dania. 

What was the Background of Kumkum Dania v. Shri Kul Bhushan Dania  Case?    

• The case involves a married couple - Mr. Kulbhushan Dania (husband/plaintiff) and Ms. Kumkum Dania (wife/defendant). 
• The couple got married on 5th October 1990 and have two children. 
• They had problems in marriage and got separated in 2008 and thereby reconciled in 2012. 
• The wife (Ms. Kumkum) worked as a Music Teacher at a government school in Delhi. She retired on 31st January, 2018, and then got re-employed at the same school. 
• The husband (plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against defendant to direct: 
  • The Defendant No. 1/Revisionist, for processing the due rights of Family Pension in favour of the Plaintiff. 
  • The Deputy Director and Director of the Department of Education (respectively Defendant Nos. 2 and 3) for grant of family pension to the Plaintiff, as per the Complaints made in respect of concealment of the family members in Service Record by the Defendant No.1/Revisionist.  
• The main dispute between the parties is that the wife had not updated her marital status in her service records, keeping it as "unmarried". 
• It is the case of the husband that the same was done intentionally to deprive him and their children of family pension benefits. 
• However, the wife claimed that it was an inadvertent oversight, and she corrected it once she became aware. 
• In the present suit the Defendant had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) wherein it was asserted that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. 
• The Learned ASCJ however, rejected the application.  
• Thereafter, a revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the CPC to set aside the order dated 27th September 2021 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that pension is a part of salary that becomes due to a government employee on their retirement. 
• It is evident from the definition itself that this is the amount which becomes payable to an individual on superannuation, which a person continues to enjoy during his/her lifetime. 
• The Court observed that it is evident from the definition of Family Pension in Rule 50 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (CCS Pension Rules, 2021) that the right to claim Family pension accrues only on demise of the retired Government employee and not before then. 
• Further, the Court observed that this right to family pension is not circumscribed by the declaration of the family members in the Service Book. 
• There is no requirement under the law for the Government employee to declare all the family members. 
• Even if the names of the family members are not mentioned in the Service Book, then too, they can apply for Family Pension, as and when the situation arises, to which they would be entitled, if they are qualified as per the Pension Rules. 
• The Court in this case held that in the present facts the wife is still alive and the cause of action for claiming family pension has not arisen during her lifetime. 
• The Court categorically held that this is the case where the husband has filed the suit to harass the wife by making innumerable complaints against her. 
• Thus, the Court held that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is liable to be allowed on the ground of non-disclosure of cause of action.

What is Pension? 

• Pension has been defined in Rule 3 (t) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 as: 
  • ““Pension” includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity but does not include dearness relief.” 
• Rule 50 of CCS Rules makes a provision for Family Pension. 
• Rule 50 (1) provides a family becomes eligible for family pension in any of these three situations: 
  • If a government employee dies after working for more than one year continuously. 
  • If a government employee dies before completing one year of service, but only if:  
    • They had passed a medical examination before joining. 
    • The examination was done by the proper medical authority. 
    • They were declared medically fit for government service. 
  • If a retired government employee dies while they were:  
    • Already receiving their pension, or 
    • Getting a compassionate allowance 
    • In any of these cases, the family can start receiving the family pension from the day after the person's death. 

What are Landmark Case Laws on the Right to Pension? 

• Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971): 
  • Pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the Government and would be governed by the rules.  
  • It was held that a Government servant falling within those rules was entitled to claim pension.  
  • It was also held that the grant of pension did not depend upon anyone's discretion.  
  • The Supreme Court further held that the pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer.  
  • It was held that it was a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer for an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch.   
  • It was held that it was not an incentive but a reward for past service.
• State of Jharkhand and Ors v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013): 
  • The Court in this case held that the right to property is not a fundamental right but it is a constitutional right.  
  • The right to receive pension has been recognized as a right to property.  
  • A person cannot be denied his right to pension without the authority of law which is a constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.   
• R. Sundaram v. The Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Ors. (2023): 
  • The Court held in this case that right to pensionary benefit is a constitutional right and as such cannot be taken away without proper justification.
• Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1999):
  • The Court held that grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty but a right of employee and as such cannot be denied without proper justification.