Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan today dismissed a writ petition by the parents of a deceased CRPF personnel and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows a widow who had no children with the deceased employee to continue receiving family pension even after remarriage, subject to the applicable income condition. The petitioners had sought transfer of the family pension to them after the widow’s remarriage, contending that her entitlement should cease and that dependent parents should be considered instead. The Court held that, so long as the widow remains eligible under the pension framework, the parents cannot claim family pension in her place.

The writ petition was instituted by the parents of a deceased Constable (Bugler) of the Central Reserve Police Force, who died during flood rescue operations while on official duty. Following his death, family pension and other admissible benefits were sanctioned in favour of his widow in accordance with Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. At the time of death, the widow was childless and had no independent source of income.

Also Read: Release On Probation Does Not Erase Conviction Stigma In Departmental Proceedings: Supreme Court

Subsequently, the parents claimed that the widow had remarried and sought transfer of family pension in their favour, asserting dependency on the deceased employee. The remarriage was verified by police authorities. The competent authority, however, rejected the parents’ claim through an office order, holding that the widow continued to be entitled to pension as a “childless widow” under the applicable rules.

The parents challenged this decision, also questioning the constitutional validity of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008, which permit continuation of family pension to a childless widow after remarriage. The dispute thus centred on whether dependent parents could claim family pension in the presence of an eligible remarried widow and whether the governing provisions were arbitrary or unconstitutional.

The Court observed that “family pension is not a matter of inheritance, nor is it a benefit that devolves upon all legal heirs of a deceased government servant.” It stated that “the entitlement to family pension is a creature of statute” and must flow strictly from Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

On the position of parents, the Court recorded that “parents become eligible for family pension only in a situation where the deceased employee has left behind neither a widow nor a child.” It noted that since the deceased was survived by an eligible widow, “the threshold condition for consideration of the Petitioners’ claim as dependent parents was not satisfied at the inception of the family pension regime.”

Addressing remarriage, the Court observed that “Rule 54, read with Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008, specifically contemplates the case of a childless widow” and that such provisions “unequivocally stipulate that a childless widow is entitled to continue to receive family pension even after remarriage, subject to the condition that her independent income does not exceed the prescribed limit.”

On the contention relating to birth of a child after remarriage, the Court stated that “relationships arising after the demise of the government servant do not satisfy the statutory requirement” and that “post-death relationships are legally irrelevant for determining entitlement under Rule 54 of the Rules.”

The Court rejected the constitutional challenge, observing that “the classification between widows and dependent parents is explicit, intelligible, and founded on a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the family pension scheme.” It further recorded that “considerations of sympathy, equity or compassion, howsoever compelling, cannot override the express provisions of a statutory pension scheme.”

Also Read: Adults Cannot Criminalise Breakups In Consensual Relationship Using Rape Law: Delhi High Court

The Court directed that: “In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out any legal or constitutional infirmity either in Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, or in Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008, governing the entitlement of a childless widow to continue to receive family pension after remarriage.”

“The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The continued payment of family pension to Respondent No.6 is in strict conformity with the statutory scheme and the executive instructions issued thereunder. The Petitioners, being the parents of the deceased employee, do not satisfy the conditions prescribed under Rule 54 for grant of family pension in the presence of an eligible widow, and no vested or preferential right in their favour can be inferred dehors the Rules.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate; Mr. Rishi Vohra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law Officer; Insp. Athurv; Mr. Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF

Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Devi And Another v. Union of India And Others

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:601-DB                                                                                       

Case Number: W.P.(C) 11263/2023

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Amit Mahajan