Daijiworld Media Network – Raipur
Raipur, Feb 14: The Chhattisgarh High Court has termed as “highly unjust” the denial of family pension to the 68-year-old mother of a police constable killed in a Naxal attack and directed the state government to decide her case within six weeks.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal passed the order on February 11 while hearing a petition filed by Filisita Lakra.
Her son, Ignatius Lakra, a 21-year-old constable with the 10th Battalion of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force (CAF) in Surajpur district, was killed in an encounter with Maoists in 2002.
Following his death, his father Lobin Lakra had been receiving family pension. However, after Lobin’s demise in August 2020, the pension was discontinued by the treasury office in Jashpur district.
Despite approaching the Commandant of the 10th Battalion of CAF and the Treasury Officers in Jashpur and Ambikapur, the petitioner failed to secure relief and subsequently moved the High Court in 2021. In October 2021, the court had directed the authorities to scrutinise and decide the issue preferably within 60 days.
The Commandant had responded that under the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam, 1965, there was no provision to grant family pension to a successor after the death of the original pensioner. The Directorate of Treasury, Accounts and Pension under the Finance Department later declared Filisita Lakra ineligible.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel Ashish Beck argued that the 1965 Rules were discriminatory since the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1963 provide that pension sanctioned to the father of a deceased employee would, after his death, be payable to the mother.
He submitted that while the 1965 Rules were intended to follow the 1963 Rules, the absence of a similar provision for mothers rendered them arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
Opposing the plea, Deputy Advocate General Prasun Kumar Bhaduri contended that the 1963 Rules were general in nature, whereas the 1965 Rules were special provisions applicable to a specific category of police personnel, and that special rules prevail over general rules. He argued that Rule 5 of the 1965 Pension Rules did not provide for extension of pension benefits to another family member after the death of the first recipient.
After hearing both sides, the bench ruled in favour of the petitioner.
“We have no hesitation in holding that the Act of 1965 should also contain similar provision as provided in the Rules of 1963 which was brought in by amendment in 1970 so as to provide the benefit of pension to the mother of the deceased employee after the death of father who had been sanctioned pension,” the court observed.
The bench further stated that denial of pension to the mother of a deceased employee is “highly unjust”, particularly in a case where the petitioner’s son laid down his life in a Naxal attack.
The High Court directed that ‘Note 6’ inserted through a 1970 amendment in the 1963 Rules be read as part of the 1965 Rules as well, and held that the pension sanctioned to the father under the 1965 Rules would, after his death, be payable to the mother.
Accordingly, the court directed the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s case in light of its observations within six weeks.