Smt. Chanda Bai vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Chanda Bai, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the release of her husband, Ram Das Anant's, retiral dues and family pension in her favour and for her children, based on a nomination form he had filled. Her husband, a Head Constable in the Excise Department, was due to retire on February 28, 2022. The petitioner stated that her husband, while previously supporting her and their children, had started living with his second wife, Asha (respondent No. 5), and stopped providing financial assistance. The petitioner had submitted representations to the Commissioner, Excise Department, and the District Excise Officer, seeking the release of dues according to the nomination. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the action taken was in accordance with law.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's claim for family pension during the lifetime of her husband, Ram Das Anant, was wholly misconceived and legally untenable. The Court reasoned that family pension is a post-retiral benefit payable only upon the demise of the government servant. Since the employee, Ram Das Anant, was alive, and no provision of law permits the grant of family pension to a spouse while the employee is alive, the relief sought by the petitioner could not be entertained. The Court found the petition to be devoid of merit. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive family pension and retiral dues during the lifetime of her husband, Ram Das Anant, based on a nomination form, when he is still alive? (Question of law, turning on principles of family pension entitlement). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that her husband had duly completed a family pension nomination form nominating her and their children. She relied on the nomination and submitted representations seeking the release of retiral dues for her and her children's welfare. She also cited a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 3828/2021 (Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. SECL & Others) as applicable to her case. Revenue/State's arguments: The State vehemently opposed the petition, arguing that no case was made out for interference by the Court, as the impugned action was taken strictly in accordance with law and upon due consideration of the available material.