Denial of pension to mother of martyred jawan: Chhattisgarh High Court requests government decision within six weeks

The Chhattisgarh High Court ordered the state government to make a decision on the 68-year-old mother of a police constable slain in a Naxal attack within six weeks, calling the denial of her family pension “highly unjust.” In response to a petition brought by Filisita Lakra, a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal issued the ruling on February 11. In 2002, her son, Ignatius Lakra, a 21-year-old constable in the Surajpur area of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force’s 10th Battalion, was killed in a clash with Maoists.

His father and Filisita’s husband Lobin have been getting family pensions since Ignatius’s passing. However, after Lobin’s demise in August 2020, the pension was discontinued by the treasury office in Jashpur district.

In 2021, the woman went to the High Court after failing to receive assistance despite contacting the Treasury Officer in Jashpur and Ambikapur and the Commandant of the 10th Battalion of the CAF.The High Court instructed the authorities to investigate and make a decision as soon as possible, ideally within 60 days, in October 2021.

“Under the Chhattisgarh Police Karmchari Varg Asadharan Parivar Nirvritti Vetan Niyam 1965, there was no provision to grant family pension to the successor after the death of the original pensioner,” the 10th Battalion’s commandant had said. Filisita Lakra was later ruled ineligible for a family pension by the Finance Department’s Directorate of Treasury, Accounts, and Pension.

Ashish Beck, the woman’s attorney, contended that the 1965 Rules were discriminatory because the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1963 stipulate that a pension granted to a deceased employee’s father would be paid to the mother after his passing.

Although the Rules of 1965 are meant to adhere to the previous Rules of 1963, he argued that they are discriminatory, arbitrary, and unfair with regard to the family pension that the mother of the deceased employee is entitled to receive.  Deputy Advocate General Prasun Kumar Bhaduri opposed the plea, arguing that special rules take precedence over general regulations and that the 1965 Rules were special provisions applied to a particular kind of police personnel, whereas the 1963 regulations were broad in nature.

“The Pension Rules 1965 is a special rule framed for special category of class. Rule 5 of Pension Rules 1965 provides that if the deceased employee is not survived with widow then the pension will be distributed amongst the family member as provided therein. There is no provision to extend the benefit of family pension to another member of the family if the first receiver of family pension expired,” Bhaduri submitted.

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 into 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 HC said.

Denial of pension to the mother of the deceased employee is highly unjust, especially when in the present case, the son of the petitioner laid down his life in a Naxal attack, the court said.

“We dispose of this petition with an observation that the ‘Note 6’ inserted by way of amendment vide Notification dated 30.11.1970 in the Rules of 1963 be read as a part of the Rules of 1965 also and the 15 pension sanctioned to father under the Rules of 1965 will, after his death, be payable to the mother,” the HC said. As such, the petitioner would be entitled to grant of pension, it added.

“Respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the observations made in this petition within a period of six weeks,” the High Court order stated.