Remarriage Does Not Disentitle Childless Widow From Family Pension: Delhi High Court Rejects Parents’ Claim

The Court observed that while it was not unmindful of the petitioners’ hardship, however, sympathy or equity cannot override the express provisions of a statutory pension scheme or invalidate an otherwise constitutional rule.

A division bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan, thus observed, “…the statutory scheme itself contains an in-built safeguard by providing that upon remarriage, if the financial resources of the widow are found to be sufficient and adequate, the family pension would not continue. This clearly demonstrates that the provision is neither arbitrary nor unguided. The Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Rule 54 violates any constitutional provision or that it is manifestly arbitrary in the constitutional sense. Merely because a different interpretation or policy choice may appear possible does not furnish a ground for striking down a statutory provision which otherwise satisfies constitutional scrutiny”.

“This Court is not unmindful of the hardship pleaded by the Petitioners. However, it is trite that considerations of sympathy, equity or compassion, howsoever compelling, cannot override the express provisions of a statutory pension scheme or form the basis for invalidating a rule which is otherwise constitutionally sound”, the bench further observed.

Advocate Deepak Kohli appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Nirvikar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel appeared for the respondents.

In the present matter, the petitioners, parents of the deceased CRPF constable, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of the authorities to continue payment of family pension to the widow (Respondent No. 6) despite her remarriage.

They contended that after remarriage, the widow ceased to be dependent on the deceased employee and, therefore, the pension ought to have been diverted to them as parents.

The petitioners also challenged the constitutionality of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated 02-09-2008, insofar as these provisions allow a childless widow to retain family pension even after remarriage.

The High Court rejected the challenge, holding that family pension is a statutory benefit governed entirely by the applicable rules, and courts cannot rewrite or re-engineer pension entitlements on equitable considerations.

The Bench noted that:

-Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules expressly permits continuation of family pension to a childless widow even after remarriage, subject to conditions prescribed therein.

-Parents of a deceased government employee fall lower in the order of beneficiaries, and their right to receive pension arises only when there is no surviving eligible spouse or child.

-The remarriage of the widow, by itself, does not extinguish her statutory entitlement, unless the rule specifically so provides.

The Court further held that dependency is irrelevant once entitlement flows from statute, and pensionary benefits cannot be reallocated based on perceived financial need.

On the constitutional challenge, the Bench found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in Rule 54 or Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum, observing that the policy choice to protect remarried, childless widows falls within the domain of the rule-making authority.

The Court said that judicial review does not extend to substituting policy preferences, particularly in service jurisprudence.

Therefore, finding no illegality in the impugned Office Order or the continued payment of pension to the widow, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Lakshmi Devi and Anr Union of India and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:601-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Deepak Kohli and Rishi Vohra, Advocates

Respondents: Nirvikar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel, with Vinod Sawant, Law Officer; Inspector Athurv and Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF.