Holding

Family pension under the Railway service rules is a statutory benefit payable only to the widow and minor children and does not form part of the deceased employee’s estate, so it cannot be bequeathed by testamentary disposition.

Summary

The widow of a deceased railway employee and his children claimed family pension, while the employee's brother sought to claim the same on the basis of a will bequeathing the pension to him. The Railway Administration withheld payment following an injunction issued in the brother's favor. The Central Administrative Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the civil court. The Supreme Court examined whether family pension under the Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1964 could be transferred by testamentary disposition. It held that the pension is a statutory welfare benefit payable only to the widow and minor children, not part of the deceased's estate, and therefore cannot be bequeathed. Consequently, the widow was entitled to the pension, the children were not eligible as they were not minors, and the appeal was allowed, directing the Railway Administration to sanction the pension to the widow and pay arrears.

Issues considered

Whether family pension payable under the Railway service rules can be bequeathed by a will of the deceased employee

Subjects

family pensiontestamentary dispositionrailway service rulesstatutory benefitsuccessionwillwidow entitlementcivil services pension rules

Judgment

SMT. VIOLET ISSAC AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 8, 1991

B [K.N. SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]

Civil Services-Pension Rules, 1964-Rule 801-Scope of-Family
Pension-Entitlement of-Persons designated under the Rules entitled
-Not employee's nominee-Whether could be bequeathed.

On the death of a Railway employee, dispute arose among his
c wife, sons, daughters and brother for the family pension, gratuity and
other emoluments. The brother of the deceased eniployee filed a civil
suit in the court of Sub-Judge for a permanent injunction restraining
the appellants-the wife, sons and daughter-from claiming or receiv-
ing any monetary benefits from the Railway Administration, contend-
D ing that by a will dated 9.9.1984 of the deceased employee, he was
entitled to receive the benefits to the deceased employee's widow. The
Railway Authority did not pay any amount, as an injunction had been
issued by the Civil Court.

The appellants there-upon made an application before the Central
E Administrative Tribunal for a direction for the release of the amounts
on the grounds that the will was a forged one, and the beneficiary was
not entitled to receive pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal held ~hat since the dispute related to rival claims
based on title arising from relationship, it had no jurisdiction to decide
F the same. It also directed transfer of the case to the Civil Court for trial.

In the appeal to this court on the question was: whether family
pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means
ofa will.

G Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1. Family Pension Rules, 1964 provided for the sanction of
family pension to the survivors of a Railway Employee. Rule 801 pro-
vides that family pension shall be grarited to the widow /widower and
where there is no widow /widower, to the minor children of a Railway
H servant, who may have died while in service. Under the Rules, ..son of

282
VIOLET ISSAC v. U.0.1. 283

the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25
~ years, an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she
A
attains the age of 25 years or gets married, whichever is earlier. The
Rules do not provide for payment of Family Pension to brother or any
other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The
Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to
the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death B
of the deceased employee. The rules do not provide for any nomination
,/
with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons
who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person
except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family
pension. [285E-H]

2. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the c
wife and childre~ of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee
has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as
~
he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme
is in the nature of welfare scheme framed by the Railway Administra-
tion to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased D
employee. [285H-286B]

_. '\.
3. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any petson
by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family
pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of
his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary dis- E
position. [286B-C]

- [The appellant No. 1, widow of the deceased Railway employee is
entitled to receive the family pension, notwithstanding the will alleged
to have been executed by the deceased on 9.9.1984 in favour of his
~ brother. As regards appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, they are not F
.... ..,.....- minors, therefore, under the Rules they are not entitled to any family
pension. [286F-H]

The Railway Administration is free to evict them in accordance
with the Rules, only after arrears of family pension are paid to the
widow.] [287B-C] G
-- ~ Jodh Singh v. Union of India & Anr., [1980] 4 S.C.C. 306,
followed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 653
of 1991. H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1989 of the Central
A
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 694 of 1988.

Avadh Behari, A.K. Sharma and Inderjit Singh Mehra for the
Appellants.

B Dr. Anand Prakash, B. Krishna Prasad and S.M. Ashri for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
SINGH, J. Leave granted.
c Whether family pension payable under the service rules could be
bequeathed by means of a will by the deceased employee during his
life time, is the question involved in this appeal. ·

Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Issac Alfred
D was employed in the Railway Workshop, Jagadhri as a Skilled
Mechanic, Tool Shop, he died in harness on 16.10.1984. On his death a
dispute arose between Mrs. Violet Issac, widow of the deceased Rail-
way employee, his sons, daughters and Elie Alfred, brother of the
deceased regarding family pension; gratuity and other emoluments,
payable by the Railway Administration. Smt. Violet Issac, widow of
E the decesed employee made an application before the competent Rail-
way Authority for the grant of family pension and for payment of
gratuity and other dues to her, her four so1;1.s and one daughter, who are
appellant Nos. 2 to 6. The Railway Authorities did not pay any amount
to the appellants as an injunction order had been issued by the Sub-
Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri in Civil Suit No. 365/85 filed by Elie Alfred,
F brother of the deceased employee, restraining. the appellants from
claiming or receiving any amount which were to the credit of the
deceased Railway employee towards C.T.D. Account, gratuity, family
pension and other dues. It appears that the relations between late Issac
Alfred and his widow Smt. Violet Issac and the children were not
cordial, as a result of which he had made nomination in favour of his
G brother and further he had executed a will dated 9.9.1984 in favour of
Elie Alfred bequeathing all his properties to him including the family
pension, gratuity· etc. When the appellants raised claim for family
pension and other dues before the Railway Authorities, Elie Alfred
I >--·
filed Civil Suit No. 365/85 for the issue of a permanent injunction
restraining the appellants from receiving or claiming any monetary
H benefits from the Railway Administration. In his suit Elie Alfred had
.
VIOLET ISSAC v. U.0.I. [SINGH, J.] 285

~ pl~aded that in view .of the will, his d~ceased brothe.r's widow an? · A
· children were not entitled to any benefit from the Railway Authon-
ties, instead he was entitled to the deceased's estate including the right
to receive family pension and other dues. The Civil Court issued an
injunction order restraining the appellants from receiving any amount
from the Railway Authorities as a result of which the Railway ·
Administration did not pay any amount to them. The appellants, B
, thereupon, made an application before the Central Administrative
- -<' Tribunal, Chandigarh for the issue of a direction for the release of the
amounts on account of gratuity, group insurance, provident fund,
... CTD account, and family pension. The appellants pleaded that the will
relied upon by Elie Alfred was a forged one and Elie Alfred was not
_) entitled to receive pensionary benefits. On an application made by the
appellants the suit pending before the Civil Court was also transferred c
to the Tribunal's file. The Tribunal by its order dated 11.12.1989 held
· that since the dispute related to rival claims based on title arising from
-·~
relationship in one case and from a will in the other, it has no jurisdic-
tion to decide the same. The Tribunal further directed for the transfer
of the civil suit to the Civil Court for trial in accordance with law. The D
appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal by means of the
present appeal.

The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident
._...;.,,_-. fund, family pension and other allowances, but this Court while issuing
notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension: E
We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only.
Family Pension Rules 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension
to the survivors of a Railway Employee. Rule 801 provides that family
pension shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no
widow /widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may
~ have died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is F
.. . ,. , · -entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years, an
unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the
age of 25 years or gets married, which ever is earlier. The Rules do not
provide for payment of family pension to brother or any other family
member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The FamHy
Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the G
widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of
·~ --~ the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination
with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons
who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no-other person
except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family
pensfon. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the
A employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the
family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The
Family Pension Scheme is in the nature 6f a welfare scheme framed by
the Railway Administration to provide relief to the widow and minor
children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for
B nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life
time for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same.
Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose
of the same by testamentary disposition.

In Jodh Singh v. Union of India & Anr., [1980] '4 SCC 306 this (_
Court on an elaborate discussion held that family pension is admissible
c 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. The Court observed:

"Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status
D and a status that is acquired on the 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 estate 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."
E
The Court further held that what was not payable during the life time
of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not
form part of his estate. Since the qualifying event occurs on the death
of the deceased for the payment of family pension, monetary benefit of
family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling
F him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. r-
We, accordingly hold that Mrs. Violet Issac the widow of the
deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive the family pension,
notwithstanding, the will alleged to have been executed by the
deceased on 9.9.1984 in favour of his brother Elie Alfred. As regards
G appellant Nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, it has been stated on behalf of the
Railway Administration that they are not minors, therefore, under the
Rules they are not entitled to any family pension. We, accordingly
allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the
respondent Railway Adminstration to sanction family pension in
accordance with the Rules to the appellant No. 1 and to pay the arrears
H within two months. The respondent's suit, so far as it relates to the
I

VIOLET ISSAC v. U.0.1. [SINGH, J.] 287

~ family pension cannot proceed but we do not express any opinion with A
/ -regard to other claims raised therein.

It has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent
Railway Administration that the appellants have been occupying the
Railway quarter which had been allotted to late Issac Alfred, even
B
though they are not entitled to occupy the same. On behalf of the
,.. appellants, it was urged that since they had not been paid any dues by
----...( the Railway Administration they were not in a position to vacate the
premises. The Railway Administration is free to evict them in accor-
dance with the Rules, only after arrears of family pension are paid to
) Mrs. Violet Issac. The Railway Administration will charge rent from
~ the appellants at the rate on which the quarter had been let out to the c
deceased Railway employee.

There will be no order as to costs.

V.P.R. Appeal allowed.