Holding

The Court held that after the 1977 amendment making the family pension scheme non‑contributory, denying benefits to widows who had not made the earlier contribution is an invidious classification violative of Article 14, and they are entitled to the pension.

Summary

The case concerned widows of Government servants who, because their husbands had not agreed to make a two‑month contribution under the 1964 family pension scheme, were denied family pension even after the scheme was made non‑contributory on 22 September 1977. The petitioners argued that this denial violated the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that once the scheme became non‑contributory, all widows and dependents are entitled to the pension as a matter of right, and any differential treatment based on prior contribution is an invidious classification. The Court emphasized that family pension is not a discretionary bounty but a statutory right that fulfills a constitutional promise of socio‑economic justice. Consequently, the Court ordered that the benefits be extended to all eligible widows irrespective of earlier contribution, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether denying family pension to widows who had not made the 1964 contribution, after the scheme became non‑contributory in 1977, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether family pension is a statutory right and a fulfilment of a constitutional promise of socio‑economic justice.
Whether the 1977 amendment extends pension benefits to all widows irrespective of prior contribution.

Subjects

family pensionequalityArticle 14non‑contributory schemewidowscivil servicessocio‑economic justice

Judgment

io42
A'
SMT. POONAMAL ·ETC. ETC.

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

April 30, 1985

[D.A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.J
Ci11il Service :

Family P1nsion-Contributories to scheme entitled to family pension- "
Scheme liberalised-Pre-condition of contribution done away with-Benefit not ex-
tended to non-contributories-Whether violates Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Since January 1, 1964, there were in fo.rce two parallel family pension
D 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 contri-
bute _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
:E
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 conti-
nued 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-contribu-
tory 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 con-
tribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence
violative of Art. 14. If widows and dependents of deceased Government ser-
vants 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
A
which a family, pension scheme is devi<ied th-.: widow· and the dependent minors
would equatly be entitled to family pension as .a 1natter o·r right. If fact the
Court looks Upon pension not merely as a: statutory right but as the fulfilment
of a constitutional Promise inasm.uch as. it. ,partakes the character of public
assistance in caseS of unemployn1ent old-age .. disablement or sim lar other cases
of undeserved ·want. Relevant rules mereiy inakc effective the constitutional
mandate. That is how pe.nsion has b~en tOoked upon in D.S. Nakara's case, B
[1983) 2 S.C.R. 165. [1045; G-H 1046 Al

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURisDic'riON Writ Petitions' Nos.
5870.93/81.
'under Article 32 of the constitution"of India
WITH.
Civil Appeal NO. 2226/ 85
c
From the' Judgment and Order dated 14. 2'. 1984 of the Bombay
High Court '
in Writ
.
Petition
.
No. 4215 of 1983
'yogesbwar Prasad, .H. Salve, P. H. Parekh, Mrs., Rani
Chhabra, Ms . . Data Krishnamurthy, Ms. A. Subhashini, A. S. D .
Pundir; J. S. B11i, S. Ba/afcrishnan,"Pramod Sarup· and R. S. Sodhi,
for the petitioners.
V. B. Joshi for the Appellant.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DESAI, J. Promise of socio.economic justice depicted in rosy
language in Arts. 38, 39 and 41 is being translated into a real E
action-oriented programme by the stand taken by the Union of
, . India and the Ministry of Finance in this group of petitions and
application for special leave which deserves approbation and com-
..., mendation. Amongst the neglected sections of the society women
form a. bulk. In that bigger class widows are possibly ·the worst
\ F
) sufferers both socially and economically. To them, a helping hand
is extended, f6r providing succour sorely needed, by the two state- .

. ments made in the Court by Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appea-
ring for the Union of India and the Ministry of Finance. Through-
out the course cif hearing, Mr. B. Dutta adopted a positive, cons-
tructive and helpful attitude; and he J is equally entitled to our
appreciation. G
As a sequel to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in D..s. Nakata and Others v. Union of India(1) a number of
petitions came to be filed by persons claiming to be entitled to 'ihe so-
cially berieficient approach of the Court. One such group comprised
(I) [1983] 2 SCR 16~ H
1044 SUPREME COURT RBPOR.TS (1985] 3 S.C.R

widows ·or erstwhile Government servants who are not in receipt of
A
family pension •

.Family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950.
When a Government servant die io harness or soon after retirement,
io the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning
B member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered
orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation. Tradi- · J
tionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain
gainful employment. She suffered the most in as much as she was
deprived of the companionship of the husband and also became
economically orphaned .. As a measure of socio-economic justice >-----
c family pension scheme was devise to help the widows tie over the
crisis .and till the minor children attain majority to extend them
some succour. This appeared to be the underlyiag motivation in
devising the family pension scheme, It was liberalised from time to
time. The liberalisation was however subject lathe condition that the
Government Servant bad in his life time agreed that he shall make
D' .a ·contribution of an amount equal to two months' emoluments
or Rs. 5,000 whichever is less out of the death-cum-retirement
gratuity. Those Government servants wh) did not accept this
condition were denied the benefit of family pension scheme. ·

Focussing on the liberalisation that was introduced in 1964
E it transpires that toe widow and ihe minor children of those Govern-
ment servants who died prior to 1964 were not eligible for the
benefit of liberaHsed scheme. The other class which was left out of
the liberalisation. scheme was those Government servants who
specifically opted out of the family pension scheme, 1964. The
resultant situation was that since January 1,1964 there were·in force
F two parallel schemes in operation namely a) a p1 e-liberalisation
scheme which continued to be in force those who retired prior to
l.1.1964 or those who did not contribute out of the death-cum-
retirement gratuity, roughly styled as non-contributory scheme. The
other was the contributory scheme. Both these schemes are incorpo-
rated in Rule 54 and 55 respectively of the Civil Services Pension
G Rules 1972. ·

The Union of India in its onward march for ushering in socio-
economic justice in the form of social security further took a bold
and imaganative step on September 22, 1977 by which the pre-
condition of two months' emolument out of death-cum-retirement
H, gratuity was done away with. Reco11nising the need for such a
POONAMAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 1045

beneficial change,''the· inemor~nJum introducing the 1977 libera- A
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 B
examined in the light of the recommendations of the Natio-
nal 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. D
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 E
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 E
\ 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
1 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 c
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 H
(2) [1976] 3 SCR 360
't046 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS [ 1985] 3 S.C.R.
old-age, disablement or similar other cases of underserved want.
A Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate.
That is bow pension has been looked upon in D.S. Nakara's judg-
ment. 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
B
taken of the 1964 . liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to
make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons J'
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
c 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
D in the Court, Mr. B. Dutta learned counsel appearing for the Union
of India requested for a short adjournment to take further instruc-
tions.

On the next bearing Mr. B. Dutta made a statement on
behalf of Union of India, the relevant portion of which may be
E 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
F
benefit of the Family Pension Scheme 1964 to all the living
widows. Payment to such .widows may be made from
...r
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\' pen-
sioner occurs hereafter. Administrative procedures are
being evolved to faciliate identification of widows of
G
Government pensioners and to Iay 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
ll retrospective effect."
POONAMAL v. UNION (Desai, J.) 1047

While examining the statement it transpired .that certain A
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 lr
them. The issues raised by the Society may be summed up as under: B

"(i)" whether the orders will apply to the widow/minor son/
umarried daughter as defined in the relev.aiH provisions
of family pension scheme;
c
(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 : •
F '
"(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. ·

G
(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
8
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R.
A under the current Rules.

(iii) Government have already agreed to the grant of ar-
rears of family pension with effect from 22.9. 77-the
date on which contribution. of two montbs' emolu-
B ments 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 emolu-
ments. Similarly, no demand for refund of contri-
bution already made by pensioners will be enter-
tained."
c
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 incor-
porate the clarifications submitted to the Court.
D 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.
E

M.L.A. Appeal allowed
F