In a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court to declare Clause 5.2.5 of the Guidelines regarding the disbursement of the Central Samman Pension 2014, which excludes divorced daughters from claiming benefits of the scheme as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a Single Judge Bench of Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that the petitioner, a divorced daughter of a freedom fighter, was entitled to pension under the said scheme and directed the payment of the same within eight weeks.
Through the present petition, the petitioner sought the transfer of the freedom fighter’s pension under the “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980” from her mother’s account into hers. The petitioner’s father was a freedom fighter from Burma who joined the Indian National Army and fought against the British. The petitioner’s mother was granted a pension by both the State and the Central Government.
The petitioner was married to a Singaporean citizen and had two children with him. She eventually divorced him as he treated her with cruelty and also left the children’s custody with him. The petitioner lived with her mother until her mother’s passing, and thereafter applied for a pension under the said scheme, seeking the transfer of her mother’s pension into her account.
Her petition to challenge the rejection of her request for a pension by the State of Tamil Nadu was allowed, but the State preferred an appeal against the same. The present petition was related to the grant of a pension by the Central Government.
The petitioner submitted that since she was dependent on her parents and that she was suffering from acute ill health without any financial support from anyone. The Union contended that for a daughter to be eligible as a dependant under the pension scheme, she must have no independent source of income and she must not be married. Reliance was placed on clauses 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 of the Revised Policy Guidelines by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2014, whereby it was stated that widowed and divorced daughters were not entitled to Samman Pension.
The Court referred to Union of India v. Khajani Devi & Ors. SLP(C) Diary No. 17706 of 2017 whereby the Supreme Court was in agreement with the lower court’s view that the benefit of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme shall be admissible to the divorced daughter as well. Further, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had categorically held that the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was a progressive and socially constructive approach that benefits divorced daughters and had treated them at par with unmarried daughters.
Thus, in compliance with judicial discipline, the Court said that when the Supreme Court had spoken, a similar view should be adopted and allowed the petition, while quashing the impugned order. It was held that the petitioner was entitled to pension from the date of her application and directed the respondents to do the same within eight weeks.
The respondents were directed to forward the papers to the State of Tamil Nadu for them to make a necessary enquiry and submit a report regarding the impoverishment as well as the dependency of the petitioner on her parents within four weeks. Upon receiving the report, the Central Government was directed to pass appropriate orders within 4 months.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – A.P. Surya Prakasam, N. Abiragan
For Respondents – R. Rajesh Vivekananthan
