After considering the arguments, the judges noted that para 6.2.1 of the 2014 Guidelines, excludes from the category of dependent person, a widow of the deceased freedom fighter in case she remarries, but does not extend this exclusion to a widower.
“In other words, if a freedom fighter was a woman, and if she was to pass away, then, even if the husband was to remarry, he could still avail the pension under the 1980 Scheme… a plain reading of para 6.2.1 would show that, as far as the daughter of the freedom fighter is concerned, she gets excluded from the category of an eligible dependent only if she remarries,” the Court noted.
Though the bench said that there is a distinct possibility that the said paragraph can be declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but it would not dwell on it because it was not under challenge.
The Court further said that paragraph 5.2.5 of the guidelines that say that the widowed/divorced daughter is not eligible for pension, is also not in consonance with the 1980 scheme.
“The 2014 Guidelines were framed to clarify the 1980 Scheme and not amend it. As alluded to hereinabove, para 5.2.5 of the 2014 Guidelines is intrinsically inconsistent with the remaining provisions of both 2014 Guidelines as also the provisions of the 1980 Scheme,” the Court said.
Therefore, there is no reason why the benefit of the scheme should not be extended to a widowed/divorced daughter, the bench underscored.
“We conclude, we may emphasize that our decision in the instant matter is not based on a concession given by the counsel for the UOI, but is based on the merits of the case. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the review petition,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
