Bombay HC Conducts Emergency Hearing from CJ’s Residence as Court Staff Deployed for Elections  ||  Madras HC: Preventive Detention Laws are Draconian, Cannot be Used to Curb Dissent or Settle Politics  ||  HP HC: Mere Interest in a Project Cannot Justify Impleading a Non-Signatory in Arbitration  ||  J&K&L HC: Women Accused in Non-Bailable Offences Form a Distinct Class Beyond Sec 437 CrPC Rigour  ||  Bombay HC Restores IMAX’s Enforcement of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Applying Res Judicata  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case    

Rajwanti Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. - (Central Administrative Tribunal) (17 Oct 2018)

An illiterate widow, unaware of her rights, is entitled to family pension and delay to enforce that right does not impede her claim

MANU/CA/0500/2018

Service

Present application is filed for quashing of impugned Order and for a declaration that, the undertaking/consent (for adjusting the amount of alleged recovery from the arrears of family pension) taken by Respondents from the Applicant is void ab-initio and has no legal sanctity. Further, to direct the Respondents to release the arrears of family pension with interest to the Applicant without any deductions as per the extant rules and law of land.

The Respondents produced a copy of the letter/undertaking dated 25th February, 2015 wherein the Applicant has requested the Respondents that, the excess amount paid to her husband on 18th August, 2003 should be recovered from her pension. The contents of the letter could not have been in her knowledge, since she has only put a thumb impression in lieu of having agreed to these conditions. The signatures of the minor son on the application also do not strengthen the case of the Respondents, since he was a minor at that point of time.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, an illiterate widow, who is unaware of her rights is entitled to family pension and the delay to enforce that right does not impede her claim for grant of family pension. The same rationale would apply in the present case as here too, the Applicant is an illiterate lady who was apparently not aware of the consequences of her putting her thumb impression on a letter, the contents of which she did not understand nor the consequences of the same on her family pension/retiral benefits.

In the case of Rekha Chouhan v. UOI & Ors, It has been held that, no one has a right to deduct or withdraw any amount from the family pension of the widow, which is her own property. The undertaking or consent, given by the Applicant has no legal sanctity and cannot be used as a handle to recover the excess amount from retiral benefits of the Applicant. Application allowed. The Respondents are directed to pay family pension to the applicant and release the arrears without any deductions, as per law.

Tags : FAMILY PENSION   GRANT   RIGHT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved