Delhi HC Upholds Family Pension for Remarried Childless Widow of CRPF Personnel; Parents Not Entitled [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the continued grant of family pension to a remarried, childless widow of a deceased Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel, ruling that dependent parents are not entitled to family pension so long as an eligible widow exists, even after her remarriage.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by the parents of late CT/Bug Bhim Singh, a CRPF constable who died in the line of duty during devastating floods in Jammu and Kashmir in 2014.

The parents had challenged an Office Order dated August 10, 2017, by which the CRPF authorities rejected their claim for family pension and continued disbursement in favour of the deceased employee’s widow, Smt. Anita Devi, despite her remarriage.

Background:

Late CT/Bug Bhim Singh drowned while rescuing fellow personnel during severe flooding at an outpost near Bijbehara Railway Station, Anantnag. A Court of Inquiry confirmed that his death occurred during bona fide official duty, and he was granted all admissible service benefits posthumously.

At the time of his death, he was survived by his wife and parents. In accordance with Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, family pension was sanctioned to his widow.

In 2016, the parents informed the CRPF that the widow had remarried and sought transfer of family pension to themselves, claiming financial dependence on their deceased son. Although remarriage was verified by police authorities, the competent authority rejected the parents’ claim, holding that the widow remained entitled as a “childless widow” under the applicable rules.

Issues Before The Court

The petition raised two principal questions:

1. Whether parents of a deceased government servant are entitled to family pension where a childless widow exists and continues to be eligible after remarriage; and
2. Whether Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and Clause 8.6 of the Office Memorandum dated September 2, 2008, which allow a childless widow to retain pension after remarriage, are unconstitutional or arbitrary.

Court’s Findings

The Court categorically held that family pension is not a matter of inheritance but a statutory entitlement governed strictly by Rule 54.

It noted that under the statutory scheme:

• Widows enjoy priority in the order of beneficiaries.
• Parents become eligible only if the deceased employee leaves behind neither a widow nor a child.
• The entitlement of parents is residual and contingent, not concurrent.

Rejecting the parents’ argument that remarriage extinguished the widow’s entitlement, the Bench observed that Rule 54 expressly permits a childless widow to continue receiving family pension even after remarriage, subject only to the income criterion.

Importantly, the Court ruled that the birth of a child from the widow’s second marriage does not affect her status as a “childless widow” in relation to the deceased employee, since relationships arising after the employee’s death have no legal nexus under the pension rules.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India, the Bench held:

“The association or nexus required under Rule 54 must be direct and proximate. Relationships arising after the demise of the government servant are legally irrelevant.”

Constitutional Challenge Rejected

The Court also dismissed the challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 54 and the Office Memorandum, holding that the classification between widows and dependent parents is reasonable, intelligible, and based on a rational policy objective.

It emphasised that:

• Courts cannot invalidate statutory provisions merely because they appear harsh or inequitable in individual cases.
• Pensionary schemes fall within the domain of economic and social policy, warranting judicial restraint.

The Bench further observed that the policy of continuing pension to remarried childless widows reflects a deliberate welfare choice aimed at ensuring financial security and encouraging remarriage, particularly in cases involving members of disciplined forces who die in service.

Final Ruling

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court concluded that:
• The widow remains legally entitled to family pension.
• The parents do not acquire any enforceable right under Rule 54 so long as an eligible widow exists.
• No constitutional infirmity or arbitrariness was found in the statutory framework.

Case Details

Case Title: Smt. Lakshmi Devi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal, Justice Amit Mahajan
Case No.: W.P.(C) 11263/2023
Date of Judgment: January 27, 2026

Advocates:

• For Petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kohli, Mr. Rishi Vohra
• For Respondents: Mr. Nirvikar Verma (SPC), Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law Officer, CRPF

[Read Judgment]