# E io42 SMT. POONAMAL ·ETC. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS - **Citation:** [1985] 3 S.C.R. 1042 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1985-04-30 - **Bench:** D.A. Desai, Ranganath Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/e-io42-smt-poonamal-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-and-ors-8895 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Ci11il Service : Family P1nsion-Contributories to scheme entitled to family pension- " Scheme liberalised-Pre-condition of contribution done away with-Benefit not extended to non-contributories-Whether violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. Since January 1, 1964, there were in fo.rce two parallel family pension schemes in operation, namely, (a) a pre-liberalisation scheme which continued to be in force for those who retired prior to 1.1.1964 or those who did not contribute _out of the death-cum-retirement gratuity, rollgbly styled· as non-contri· butory scheme. The other was the contributory scheme. Both these schemes are incorporated in Rule 5 t and 55 respectively of the Ci~il Servkes Pension Rules 1972. On September 22, 1977 the Government of India done away wi1h the pre-condition of contribution of two months' emoluments out of death-cum-retirement gratuity. But, the widows of the Government servants who had ·not agreed to make the contribution in accordance with the 1964 sche1ne were denied the benefit of pension scheme and this disability continued even after the changes introduced in 1977 when the scheme ceased to be contributory. Such widows moved Supreme Court and Bombay l-ijgh Court in writ petitions. The High Court reject~d the writ petition.· Dispos~ng of the petitions and the appeal to this Court, HELD : 1. Since the family pension scheme has become non-contributory effective from September 22, 1977, any attempt at denying its benefit to widows and dependents of Goverllment servants who bad not taken advantage of the 1964 liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence violative of Art. 14. If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension scheme without the obligation ·or ·making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits on the ground tbat the Government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not be differently treated because that would be introducing an invidious classification among those who B would be entitled to similar treatment. [IOOi B-D] ..., \ ) .. , . POONAMAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) ' '.. 1043 2. Where the Government servant . rendered service, to compensate which a family, pension scheme is devi----- ' \ > 1 POONAMAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 1045 beneficial change,''the· inemor~nJum introducing the 1977 liberaA lisation recorded the decision of the Union of India as under : "The staff side has suggested in the Nationa.I Council of the JCN that this. family pension is a social security measure and the employee should not be called upon to contribute towards the scheme. The matter has been examined in the light of the recommendations of the National Council' and the President is pleased to decide that no deduction should be made from the death-cum-retirement gratuity as a tontribution towards the family pension." ' Accordiilgly since September 22, 1977 the contributory scheme ceased to exist. A very analomous situation arose. The widows of the Government Servants . who had not agreed to make the contribution in accordance with the 1964 scheme were denied the benefit ·of pension scheme· and, this disability continued even after ·the· changes introduced in 1977 when the scheme ceased to be contributory. Such widows moved this Court in writ petitions. Widows similarly situated had also filed Writ Petition No. 3749/84 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A Division Rench of the High Court rejected the writ petition for reasons, which, in our opinion, are wholly untenable but that is beside the point. We accordingly granted leave to the petit!oners whose petition were dismissed by the Bombay High Court. Rule nisi was issued in writ petitions filed in this Court. It is not necessary • to examine the concept of pemion. As already held by this Court in numerous judgments that pension is a right noi a bounty or gratituous payment. The payment of pension does not·depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State' of Bihar and Ors.(l) State of Punjab & Anr. v. Iqbal Singh(') and D.S. Vakara & Ors. v. Union of India. Where the Government Servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled·to family pension as a matter of right. In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitu.tional promise in as much as it partakes the character of public assistanceincases of unemployment, (l) [19711 Supp. SCR 634 (2) [1976] 3 SCR 360 B D E E c H A B c D E F G ll 't046 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS [ 1985] 3 S.C.R. old-age, disablement or similar other cases of underserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. That is bow pension has been looked upon in D.S. Nakara's judgment. At the bearing of group of matters we pointed out that since the family pension scheme bas become non-contributory effective from September 22, 1977 any attempt at denying its bene~ · fit to widows and dependents of Government servants who had not taken of the 1964 . liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hen.ce violative of Art. 14. If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension without the obligation of making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits on .the ground that the Government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not b~ differently treated because that would ·be introducing an invidious classification : among th.ose who would be entitled to similar treatment. When this glaring dissimilar treatment emerged in the course of bearing in the Court, Mr. B. Dutta learned counsel appearing for the Union of India requested for a short adjournment to take further instructions. On the next bearing Mr. B. Dutta made a statement on behalf of Union of India, the relevant portion of which may be extracted : "Government have examined the matter. As the Family Pension Scheme, 196~ was made non-contributory from 22.9.1977, Government would agree to extend the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme 1964 to all the living widows. Payment to such .widows may be made from 22.9.1977 or the date of death of the pensioner, whichever is later, till the date of death of the widow. .The benefit will also be available in c.ases where the death of th\' pensioner occurs hereafter. Administrative procedures are being evolved to faciliate identification of widows of Government pensioners and to I ay down the guidelines for the determination of family pensions. The benefit of fa~ily pensi;n mentioned above will not apply to the widows of Government servants who would not have been covered by the ·scheme even if the scheme had been given retrospective effect." J ... r \ , POONAMAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 1047 While examining the statement it transpired .that certain clarifications were necessary. 'Common Cause' a Society which is a petitioner in on~ petition pointed out certain aspects of the statement which needed clarification. The Court directed the the 'Common Cause' society to send a letter to the Ministry of Finance indicating the points on which clarifications were required by them. The issues raised by the Society may be summed up as under: "(i)" whether the orders will apply to the widow/minor son/ umarried daughter as defined in the relev.aiH provisions of family pension scheme; (ii) whether the scllcs of pension as prescribed with effect from 1:1.1973 will be made uniformly.applicable to all the eligible persons in the family pension . scheme; and (iii) whether the benefits of family pension scheme will be made available to all pensioners irrespective of the fact whether they had or had not contributed two months' emolouments i_n terms of the original family pension scheme, which contribution was subsequently deleted with effect from 22 9. 1977." Today when the matter was taken up for final hearing another statement was submitted by Mr. B. Dutta on behalf of the Union of Ind.ia. The Government of India: submitted its clarifications cln the afore-mentioned three points which reads as under : • "(i) Governments are prepared to grant to the dependents i.e. minor sons, etc. of the pensioners governed under pre- 1964 scheme the same pensionary benefits as are admissible to the dependents under current pension rules. · (ii) It is clarified that Government aTe agreeable to apply the increased pension rates introduced from J.1.1973 to all the eligible persons, including dependents. This will, however. be subject to the condition that the total amount admissible (excluding dearness relief) under the liberalised provision now being agreed to, will not be more than what is admissible to a person covered A lr B c ' F G 8 A B c D E F 1048 (iii) SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R. under the current Rules. Government have already agreed to the grant of arrears of family pension with effect from 22.9. 77-the date on which contribution. of two montbs' emoluments by pensioners was dispensed with. p, rsons who ... are now to be granted the benefits of family pension will not be required to contribute two months emoluments. Similarly, no demand for refund of contribution already made by pensioners will be entertained." The clarifications offered are clear, unambiguous and wholly )-· satisfactory. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that nothing more is required to be done and requested us to incorporate the clarifications submitted to the Court. Accordingly these petitions and appeals are disposed of in terms as:herein above indicated. We order accordingly. The appeal against the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is also allowed in the same terms. This is . a happy ending to this extremely humane problem. M.L.A. Appeal allowed