Page 1

1

         NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9823 OF 2016 (Arising out of  S. L. P. (C) No.21187 of 2015)

NITU       … APPELLANT

VERSUS

SHEELA RANI & ORS.       … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents

waived service of notice and at the request of the learned

counsel, the appeal was heard on the same day.   

3. Being  aggrieved  by  an  Order  dated  21st April,  2015

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  at

Chandigarh  in  C.R.  No.6012  of  2014,  the  widow  of  a

Page 2

2

government  employee  has  approached  this  Court  with  a

grievance  that  she  is  not  being  paid  full  pension  in

accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Family  Pension

Scheme, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) of the

Government of Punjab.   

4. The  facts  giving  rise  to  the  present  litigation,  in  a

nutshell, are as under :

Shri  Yashpal,  the  husband  of  the  appellant,  was

serving  as  a  Computer  DOD in  the  office  of  the  District

Malaria Officer under the Haryana Government.  Upon his

death,  family  pension  payable  to  the  widow  had  been

determined  at  Rs.2,153/-  per  month.   Respondent  No.1,

who is a real contesting respondent, is the mother of late

Shri Yash Pal, who filed Suit No.30/SC of 2005 in the Court

of  Civil  Judge  (Senior  Division),  Rohtak  for  getting  a

succession  certificate  so  that  she  can  get  the  pension,

which was payable in respect of the services rendered by

late Shri Yash Pal to the Government of Haryana.  In the

said suit,  the appellant  appeared and made a claim that

Page 3

3

she, being the widow of late Shri Yash Pal, was entitled to

pension, whereas sister of late Shri Yash Pal, who was also

a  respondent  in  the  said  suit  filed  a  written  statement

stating that she had no objection if  succession certificate

was issued in favour of respondent no.1.   

5. After hearing the parties concerned, the learned Civil

Judge  (Senior  Division),  Rohtak  dismissed  the  suit  by

coming  to  a  conclusion  that  the  mother,  who  was  the

plaintiff in the said case and the sister of late Shri Yash Pal

were not entitled to succession certificate and held that the

present  appellant,  who  was  respondent  No.3  in  the  said

suit,  being  the  widow  of  the  deceased,  was  entitled  to

succession certificate so far as pension payable in respect of

the services rendered by late Shri Yash Pal was concerned.

The said judgment was delivered on 25th April, 2013.

6. Being  aggrieved  by  the  aforestated  judgment,  Civil

Appeal No.88 of 2013 was filed by Respondent No.1 i.e. the

mother  of  late  Shri  Yash  Pal  in  the  Court  of  Additional

Page 4

4

District Judge, Rohtak.  The said appeal was dismissed by

the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2014.  

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the first

appellate Court, the respondent mother filed Civil Revision,

being  C.R.  No.6012  of  2014,  before  the  High  Court  of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.   

8. After  hearing  the  parties  concerned,  the  High Court

allowed  the  said  Revision  Petition  by  observing  that  the

respondent mother was entitled to the succession certificate

in  view  of  the  provisions  of  Section  8  of  the  Hindu

Succession Act as she was also one of the heirs of late Shri

Yash Pal.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforestated order passed by the

High  Court,  the  present  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the

appellant – widow of late Shri Yash Pal.

10. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant

submitted  that  the  appellant  is  the  only  person  who  is

entitled to the pension as per the provisions of the Scheme.

The  learned  counsel  submitted  that  pension  is  paid  in

Page 5

5

pursuance of the aforestated Scheme and therefore, pension

cannot  be  treated  as  other  assets  of  the  deceased  and

according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Scheme,  only  the

appellant is entitled to the pension.  In the circumstances,

according  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  High  Court  has

committed an error by observing that all legal heirs have a

share  in  the  pension  payable  in  respect  of  the  services

rendered by late Shri Yash Pal.

11. The learned counsel relied upon the provisions of the

Scheme which provide that only the widow is entitled to the

pension and none else.  He referred to the provisions of the

Scheme and submitted that the impugned order passed by

the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside as it is

not in consonance with the provisions of the Scheme.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent mother submitted that she being a class-I

heir of a Hindu and as late Shri Yash Pal died intestate, she

is entitled to one-half share of  the properties of  late Shri

Yash Pal, as he was survived by his widow and the mother.

Page 6

6

The  learned  counsel,  therefore,  submitted  that  the

impugned  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  is  just  and

proper.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the State supported

the case of the appellant and submitted that in the Scheme,

the term “family” has been defined and in the instant case,

the widow of the deceased is the only person who is entitled

to pension and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be

quashed and set aside so that the entire amount of pension

can be paid to the appellant.  

14. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and have also perused the provisions of the Scheme.

15. Let  us  look  at  the  provisions  of  the  Scheme,  in

pursuance of which the pension is to be paid in respect of

services rendered by late Shri Yash Pal.  Clause 4(ii) of the

Scheme defines the term “family”, which reads as under :-

4(ii). “Family”  for  the  purpose  of  this  scheme includes the following relatives of the officer:- (a)wife, in the case of a male officer; (b)husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons;

Page 7

7

(d)unmarried minor daughters; (e) widowed/legally divorced daughters; and (f) the parents of an unmarried officer.”

16. So far as the respondent mother is concerned, she has

not been included in the definition of the term “family” for

the  reason  that  as  per  the  provisions  of  sub-clause  (f),

parents  of  an  unmarried  officer  would  be  a  part  of  the

family and therefore, the respondent mother would not be

included  in  the  family  of  late  Shri  Yash  Pal  as  he  was

married.

17. So far as the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,

1956,  are  concerned,  it  is  true  that  the  properties  of  a

Hindu, who dies intestate would first of all go to the persons

enumerated in class I of the schedule as per the provisions

of  Section 8 of  the said Act  and therefore,  so far  as the

properties of late Shri Yash Pal are concerned, they would

be divided among the respondent mother and the appellant

wife, provided there is no other family member of late Shri

Yash  Pal  alive,  who  would  fall  within  class  1  heirs,  but

position in this case, with regard to pension, is different.

Page 8

8

18. It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is

to  be  given  under  the  provisions  of  the  Scheme  and

therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension

as per the Scheme would get it.  Similar issue had arisen

before  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Violet  Issaac (Smt.) v.

Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725 and after considering

the relevant provisions, this Court came to the conclusion

that family pension does not form part of the estate of the

deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to

dispose of the same in his Will  by giving a direction that

someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be

given the same.  In the instant case, as per the provisions of

the Scheme, the appellant widow is the only family member

who is entitled to the pension and therefore, the respondent

mother would not get any right in the pension.  Of course, it

cannot be disputed that if there are other assets left by late

Shri Yash Pal, the respondent mother would get 50% share,

if  late  Shri  Yash  Pal  had  not  prepared  any  Will  and  it

appears that late Shri Yash Pal had died intestate  and no

Will had been executed by him.  

Page 9

9

19. For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the High

Court  committed  an  error  by  giving  a  direction  that  the

respondent  mother  should  also  get  50%  share  in  the

pension.  In view of the aforestated legal position, the entire

pension would be payable to the appellant widow.

20. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside

and it is directed that the pension shall be paid only to the

appellant widow and not to the respondent mother.   

21. The  appeal  stands  disposed  of  as  allowed  with  no

order as to costs.

.…………………………….J.                  (ANIL R. DAVE)

……………………………..J.                                (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 28, 2016.