Holding

A special family pension sanctioned under Rule 74 to the widow of an Air Force officer cannot be part of the deceased's estate and cannot be disposed of by testamentary disposition.

Summary

Flt Lt. Panj Rattan Singh, an Indian Air Force officer, died in service. He had executed a will bequeathing his property to his father and had nominated his parents and siblings for provident fund and pension benefits, but not his wife. The widow, Hardev Kaur, was granted a special family pension under Rule 74 of the Air Force Pension Regulations by the President of India. The petitioner (the father) claimed that the pension formed part of the deceased's estate and should be governed by the will. The Supreme Court held that a special family pension, payable only after the officer's death and based on the widow's status, cannot be part of the estate and therefore cannot be disposed of by testamentary disposition. The Court also affirmed that the President's satisfaction on the widow's eligibility is conclusive, irrespective of the deceased's nominations. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a special family pension granted under Rule 74 to the widow of a deceased Air Force officer can form part of the deceased's estate and be subject to testamentary disposition.
Whether the President's determination of the widow's eligibility for the special family pension can be overridden by the deceased's will.

Legislation cited

Air Force Pension Regulationss. Rule 74, s. Rule 75, s. Rule 79
General Provident Fund Act, 1925

Subjects

special family pensiontestamentary dispositionestatewidowAir ForceRule 74probatePresident's discretiondependents

Judgment

929

A

JODH SINGH

v.
B
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

October 9, 1980.

l
[D. A. DESAI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]

Special Family Pension granted under rule 74 of the Pension Regulations
Jor Air Force-Whether a special family pension admissl'ble to a widow z'n her
G
capacity as widow could ever form part of tlw estate of the deceased which
.could be disposed of by testamentary disposition-'-Pension Regulations for the
Air Force Rules 74, and 79.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
HELD: (1) Special family pension sanctioned to the widow of an officer D
.;:if the Indian Air Force by the Pr·esid'ent of India under rule 74 of the Rules
.could not be subject-matter of testamentary disposition. Special family pension
is payable to the widow on the1 death of the officer. It is not payable in his
life time. What is not payable during life time of the deceased over which
he has no power of disposition cannot form part of his estate. It is the event
.of his death that provides the eligibility, qualification for claiming special family
pension. Such, qualifying event which can only occur on the death of the E
.deceased and which event confers some monetary benefit on someone other
than the deceased albeit related to the deceased, cannot form part of the estate
1-0f the deceased which he can dispose of by testamentary disposition. [934B,
933H-934A]
• (2) Where a cert~in benefit is admissible on account of status and a status
that is acquired on the happening of c~rtain event, namely, OR becoming a

,
I
·widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagina-
tion could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form· F
part of the estate of the deceased it can never be the subject-matter of the
ctestamentary disposition. [933B-C]
Special family pension under rule 74 is admissible amongst others to
widow of an officer. It is not that the deceased gets pension or earns special
family pension. It is the untimely death of the deceased, the process of death
having been hastened or accelerated by the hazards of service that the widow
G
who is rendered destitute is granted special family pension. Whether the widow
qualifies for special family pension i• to be determined by the sanctioning
authority, the President in this case. The ·special family pension is admissible
on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there
wa·s some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow.
[932H; 933A-B]
(3) Whether a widow has qualified for a special family pension, gratuity H
·or ordinary family pension is a matter to be dete~mined by the President. If
the President is satisfied that the widow is eligible for pension, she cannot be
.denied the benefit by some dependents of the deceased claiming that
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A instead of the widow he or she should have been held eligible. for special family
pension. Therefore, it is irrdevant whether the deceased had shown his wife
as his dependent or not if the President is satisfied that she as tlie wido~ of
the deceased officer was eligible for special family pension. [933F-G]
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 7254 of 1980.
B From the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1980 of the Punja!)
and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 555/80.
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C DESAI, J.-Whether a special family pension awarded by the
President to the widow of a deceased officer who belonged to Air
Force could be the subject-matter of a testamentary disposition by
the deceased in his life time, presents the core problem in this
petition. ·

D Flt. Lt. Panj Rattan Sigh, 5081 GD(P) was serving in Indian
Air Force. He died in an aircraft accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment on June 17, 1966. His survivors are the
widow, Hardev Kaur respondent 2, his parents, the petitioner in
this petition being the father of the deceased, two brothers and two
sisters. Prior to his death he had made his last will and testament
E dated May 14, 1959, whereby he bequethed 'absolutely and forever
all his property both moveable and immoveable to his father',
petitioner herein, and also appointed his father as the executor under
his will. Further, during his life time the deceased had appoiflled
by letter dated March 5, 1960, petitioner and Gurcharan Kaur,
his father and mot,her respectively, nominees in respect of his
F provident fund. He had also nominated his parents, brothers and
sisters by letter dated December 10, 1958, to claim pensionary
benefit which may accrue in the event of his death. By a
subsequent communication dated January 29, 1966, he had declared
11is parents, two brothers and one unmarried sister as his dependents.
The deceased had never r.eferred to hj» wife as either his dependent
G or entitled to any pensionary benefit. It appears that his relations
with his wife were far from cordial and actually he had filed a
petition for annulment of the marriage which he had subsequently
withdrawn with the result that the marriage was subsisting till the
date of his death. Respondent 2 Hardev Kaur is thus the widow
of the deceased.
H
By an order dated March 10, 1967, a special family pension
was awarded by the President to respondent 2 Hardev Kaur being
JODH SINGH v. UNION (Desai, !.) 93}

the widow of the deceased officer at the rate of Rs. 160 p.m. By A.
,the same order she was also awarded gratuity in the· amount of
Rs. 2670. The deceased was a member of a general provident fund
to which he was making his subscriptions. On his death the amount
standing to his credit in the provident fund account and certain
other amounts were to be paid to whosoever was legally entitled to
the same. B;

On a petition filed by the petitioner, will of the deceased
was admitted to probate. In the probate procet;dings the petitioner,
inter alia. contended that over and above all other sums payable
· to the heirs and/or nominees of the deceased, the special family
pension at the rate of Rs. 160 p.m. and the gratuity of Rs. 2670 G
awar~ed to respondent 2 Hardev Kaur by the President formed part
of the estate of the deceased and under the will as well as the
nomination he w;is entitled to collect the same. Probate proceeding
was contested by' respondent 2, widow of the deceased. The learned
single judge while granting probate excluded the aforementioned two
items from it. Both the parties preferred appeal under the Letters D
Patent of the High Cour,t. While disposing of both the appeals by
a ~ommon judgment a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court modified tµie probate granted to the petitioner by
including the gratuity amount of Rs. 2670 in the probate as
forming part of the estate of the deceased but confirmed the order
of the probate court in respect of special family pension awarded
to respondent 2.
Petitioner then filed a suit against the Union of India and
respondent 2 for a declaration that the order awarding special family
pension to respondent 2 widow of the deceased was illegal, unjust
and improper. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal by F
respondent 2 widow, the first appellate court set aside the decree
of the trial court and the decision of the appellate court was confirmed
in second appeal by the High Court. Hence this petition.
The only question argued by Mr. Hardev Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner before us was that special family pension is
G
admissible to the dependents and as respondent widow was nowhere
shown as dependent of the deceased, the same could not be granted
to her and in any case even if it was granted by the President in·
favour of respondent 2 it would still form part of the estate of· the
deceased and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the same.
Special family pension is granted under rule 74 of the Pension H
Regulations for the Air Force ('Rules' for short). Relevant portion
of rule 74 reads as under :
·932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A "Rule 74 : A special family pension to the widow of an
officer and special children's allowance to his legitimate children
under 18 years of age, or dependents' pension to his parents
or brothers/sistars, may be granted if his death was due to
or hastened by either a wound, injury or disease which was
attributable .to air force service, or the aggravation by au
B force service of a wound injury or disease which existed before
or arose during the air force service, provided that .... "
Could the special family pension specifically awardable to the
widow of an officer and in fact awarded to respondent 2 as widow
of the officer, ever form part of the estate of the deceased? A
c special family pension stands apart:, aloof and separate from a general
provident fund set up under the Provident Funds Act. 1925.
Decease·d was a subscriber to the General Provident Fund set up
under the 1925 Act. The amount standing to !Jis credit in the
provident fund account was treated by the High Court as forming part
of the estate of the deceased and. therefore. its devolution would
D be according to the wishes of the deceased as disclosd in his last
will testament. The amount thus standing to the credit of the
subscriber would be payable in the event of death of the subscriber
or on his retirement from service.
Pension is a retirement benefit. It is· admissible under the
relevant rules on superannuation. It is payable on superannuation
E
to the employee himself during his life time after retirement. Special
family pension is not admissible to the employee but to the speeified
members of the employee's family and that too in the event of his
death while in service or after his retirement as provided in - the
Regulations. It is in the nature of a compensation because the
F death was due to or hastened by either a wound, injury or disease
which was attributable to Air Force service or the aggravation by
Air Force service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before.
or arose during Air Force service, etc. (see Rule 74). If death
is not referable to any of the events mentioned in Rule 7 4, special
family pension is not admissible. To compensate for death on
r account of hazards of service rendering dependents destitute that
benefit of special family pension is conferred on certain persons
.having a certain status arising out of and directly attributable to
relation with the deceased. Special family pension under rule 74
is admissible, amongst others, to widow of an officer. It is not
that the deceased gets pension or earns special family pension. It
H is the untimely death of the deceased, the process of death having
been hastened or accelerated by the hazards of service, that the
widow who is rendered destitute is granted special family pension.
JODH SINGH v. UNION (Desai, !.) 933

Whether the widow qualifies for special family pension is to be A
determined by .the sanctioning authority, the President in this case.
T.he special family pension is admissible on account of the status
of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some
estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow.
Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and B
a status that is acquired on tl:ie happening of certain event, namely,
on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension
by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the es~ate of
the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased
it could never be the subject-matter of testamentary disposition.
It was, however, said that hot all widows are entitled to special
c
family pension .bu~ only the dependent wife who becomes widow
on the death of an officer alone becomes eligible for pension and
in this case the deceased had not shown his wife as one of his
dependents but on the contrary the parents, the sisters and the
brothers were shown as dependents of the officer. Rule 74 D
envisages a special family pension to the widow, a special
children allowance to his legitimate chHdren or dependents' pension
to his parents, brothers or sistets. To each one of them, if he or she
qualifies for special family pension, the benefit is admis-
sible. Rule 75 envisages ordinary family pension to widow
and legitimate children of the deceased officer. Rule 79 confers E
discretion on the President .to grant a pension and/ or gratuity to
a widow who may not be eligible under rule 74 or rule 75 because
she was separate from the husband at the time of his death. Thus,
whether a widow has qualified for a special family pension, gratuity
or ordinary family pension is a matter to be determined by th_e
President. If the President is satisfied that the widow is eligible F
for pension, she cannot be denied the benefit by some other
depehdents of the deceased claiming thait instead of the widow he
or she should have been held eligible for special family pension.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the deceased had shown his wifo
as his dependent or not if the President is satisfied that she as the
widow of the deceased officer was eligible for special family pension. G

The real controversy is whether a special family pension
admissible to a widow in her capacity as widow could ever form a
part of the estate of the deceased which could be disposecl of by
testamentary disposition? Special family pension is payable to the
widow on the death of the officer. It is not payable in_ his life H
time. What is not payable. during life time of the deceased over
which· he has no power of disposition cannot form part of his
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

.A estate. It is the event of his death that provides the eligibility
qualification for claiming special family pension. Such qualifying
event which can only occur on the death of the deceased and
which event confers some monetary benefit on someone other than
the deceased albeit related to the deceased, cannot form part of
the estate of the deceased whrch he can dispose of by testamentary
·B disposition. Therefore, it is unquestionably established that, special
family pension sanctioned to· the widow of an officer of the Indian

·C
Air Force by the President of India under Rule 74 of the Rules
could not be subject-matter of ~estamentary disposition.
Further, whether a gratuity specifically sanctioned in favour
of the widow as widow of the deceased by the President under the
J
Rules could be the subject-matter of testamentary disposition has not
been considered in this matter because the amount lfas been included
in the probate of the will of the deceased and the widow has not
questioned that order before us. That question is kept open. '

n With these observations we dismiss this special leave petition.

S.R. Petition dismissed.