Rajasthan HC orders Railway to release family pension to widow despite omission in form of nomination of ‘ill-literate’ husband, imposes cost of ₹1L

Regardless of not appearing on the application form for the insurance plan, Rajasthan High Court directed the Railway Department to grant family pension to the “illiterate” widow and daughters of a deceased employee, observing that the substantive right of a citizen could not be denied due to procedural lapses, especially when the assaulted was illiterate.

“It is a settled position of law that in matters where the aggrieved person is illiterate or has little knowledge of legal procedures, he cannot become prey to the technicalities and complexities of the law.”

The bank of Justice Sameer Jain also directed the department to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner for the mental distress and financial loss she had to bear over the years.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the widow of an ex-employee of the Indian Railways who was claiming family pension on account of the death of her husband in 2008. As she was illiterate and had no knowledge of legal intricacies nor anyone else to guide her, the petitioner had approached the respondents in 2012 regarding family pension.

Initially, the department denied grant of pension on the ground that no credentials of the petitioner or her daughters were filled in the nomination form filled by the deceased husband for the insurance scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a succession certificate and in view of a trial court order directing the department to disburse pension to the petitioner, the department disbursed the pension amount to in the period between 2009 and 2013.

However, it was the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the calculated amount was incorrect and an additional amount should be paid to the petitioner as pension for that particular period. It was further submitted that no pension for the period after 2013 was paid to the petitioner. Counsel argued that it was a settled principle of law that once family pension was awarded to a person, it should continue for life.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent department opposed the prayers on various grounds such as delay in filing the petition, failure to avail of an effective alternative remedy and non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the nomination form filled by the deceased husband.

The Court chided the respondent department for taking advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy and emotional instability and opined that procedural lapses cannot deny the substantive rights of a citizen, especially when the petitioner was struggling to survive and had been subject to severe mental anguish and financial agony. for a long time She also pointed out that her husband was “barely literate” and that the nomination form appeared to have been filled by someone else, who prima facie erroneously omitted to fill the petitioner’s credentials in the form.

“Respondent: The railway authorities instead of providing proper, reasonable and proper guidance to the petitioner as her family pension rights have taken advantage of the petitioner’s illiteracy and emotional instability.”

In addition, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case SK Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and anr. in which, in a similar factual situation, the Supreme Court had noticed the petitioner’s delay in approaching the department, and had granted family pension benefits to the widow, highlighting especially her situation of insufficient means after the death of her husband. In addition, in the case of Sampati v. Central Administrative Court, the Supreme Court made a similar observation and held that,

“Family pension is a small relief to destitute widows and also to the next of kin of a deceased official, and this should not be denied on technical grounds, but should be granted, if there is any substantive right to illiteracy and other social practices must also be taken into account when considering family pension issues in light of the socio-economic configuration.

The Tribunal also highlighted the fact that since the respondent department had already released a portion of the family pension, they could not refrain at a late stage from releasing additional/future pension on account of the principle of exclusion.

“It is clear that the defendants have duly released the arrears of the period between 2009 and 2013, with the intervention of the Court and how they are now finding loopholes to escape from their responsibility and duty.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner directing the respondent-department to release the family pension arrears to the petitioner, and also ordered an expenditure of Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner for the mental agony she has had to suffer all these years.

Title: Smt. Leela Devi v. Union of India and Ors.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 302

Click here to read/download the order