http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SMT.  VIOLET ISSAC AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/02/1991

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) SAWANT, P.B.

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 282        1991 SCC  (1) 725  JT 1991 (1)   337        1991 SCALE  (1)159

ACT:      Civil  Services-Pension Rules, 1964-Rule 801-Scope  of- Family  Pension-Entitlement of-Persons designated under  the Rules  entitled  -Not employee’s  nominee-Whether  could  be bequeathed.

HEADNOTE:      On the death of a Railway employee, dispute arose among his  wife,  sons,  daughters  and  brother  for  the  family pension, gratuity and other emoluments.  The brother of  the deceased  employee filed a civil suit in-the court  of  Sub- judge   for   a   permanent   injunction   restraining   the appellants.---the wife, sons and  daughter-from claiming  or receiving   any   monetary   benefits   from   the   Railway Administration, contending that by a will dated 9.9.1984 of the  deceased  employee,  he was  entitled  to  receive  the benefits  to  the deceased employee’s  widow.   The  Railway Authority did not pay any amount, as an injunction had  been issued by the Civil Court.      The  appellants there-upon made an  application  before the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction for  the release  of the amounts on the grounds that the will  was  a forged one, and the beneficiary was not entitled to  receive pensionary benefits.      The  Tribunal  held that since the dispute  related  to rival  claims based on title arising from  relationship,  it had  no jurisdiction to decide the same.  It  also  directed transfer of the case to the Civil Court for trial.      In  the  appeal  to this court  on  the  question  was: whether family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will.      Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD:  1.  Family  Pension  Rules,  1964  provided  for  the sanction  of  family pension to the survivors of  a  Railway Employee.   Rule 801 provides that family pension  shall be granted   to  the  widow/widower  and  where  there  is   no widow/widower,  to the minor children of a Railway  servant, who  may have died while in service.  Under the  Rules, son of                                                        283 the  deceased  is entitled  to  family  pension   until   he attains   the  age  of  25 years,  an   unmarried   daughter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

is   also   entitled   to   family   pension    till     she attains   the   age   of   25   years   or   gets   married, whichever   is  earlier.   The Rules  do  not  provide   for payment  of  Family  Pension  to   brother   or   any  other family   member  or  relation  of  the   deceased    Railway employee.    The Family  Pension  Scheme  under  the   Rules is   designed   to  provide   relief   to  the   widow   and children   by  way  of  compensation   for   the    untimely death   of   the  deceased  employee.  The  rules   do   not provide    for   any   nomination with  regard   to   family pension,   instead  the  Rules   designate    the    persons who   are   entitled   to  receive   the   family   Pension. Thus,   no   other   person except  those  designated  under the   Rules  are  entitled   to   receive   family  pension. [285E-H]      2.  The  Family   Pension   Scheme   confers   monetary benefit    on   the  wife  and  children  of  the   deceased Railway    employee,   but   the   employee has no title  to it.  The   employee   has  no  control   over   the   family pension   as he is not required to make any contribution  to it.  The family pension Scheme is in the nature  of  welfare scheme  framed  by  the Railway  administration  to  provide relief  to  the  widow and minor children  of  the  deceased employee. [285H-286B]      3. Since, the  Rules  do  not  provide  for  nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life  time for  the payment of family pension, he has no title  to  the same.  Therefore,  it  does  not form  part  of  his  estate enabling  him  to dispose of the same by  testamentary  dis- position. [286B-C] [The   appellant   No.   1,   widow   of    the     deceased Railway     employee    is  entitled   to    receive     the family   pension,  notwithstanding   the   will  alleged  to have  been  executed  by  the  deceased  on   9.9.1984    in favour   of   his brother.  As  regards  appellant  Nos.   2 to    6    are   concerned,   they    are     not    minors, therefore,  under  the  Rules  they  are  not  entitled   to any   family pension.      [286F-H]      The   Railway  Administration  is  free    to    evict them    in    accordance  with   the   Rules,   only   after arrears  of  family  pension  are   paid   to   the widow.] [287B-C]      Jodh  Singh V. Union of India & Anr., [1980]  4  S.C.C. 306, followed.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 653  of 1991.                                                        284      From  the Judgment and Order dated 11. 12.1989  of  the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No.  694 of 1988.      Avadh Behari, A.K. Sharma and Inderjit Singh Mehra  for the Appellants.      Dr. Anand Prakash, B. Krishna Prasad and S.M. Ashri for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SINGH, J. Leave granted.      Whether family pension payable under the service  rules could  be  bequeathed  by means of a will  by  the  deceased employee  during his life time, is the question involved  in this appeal.      Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Issac Alfred was employed in the Railway Workshop,  Jagadhri as  a  Skilled Mechanic, Tool Shop, he died  in  harness  on 16.10.1984. On his death a dispute arose between Mrs. Violet Issac,  widow  of the deceased Railway employee,  his  sons, daughters and Elic Alfred, brother of the deceased regarding family  pension, gratuity and other emoluments,  payable  by the  Railway Administration.  Smt.  Violet Issac,  widow  of the  deceased  employee  made  an  application  before   the competent Railway Authority for the grant of family  pension and for payment of gratuity and other dues to her, her  four sons  and one daughter, who are appellant Nos. 2 to  6.  The Railway Authorities did not pay any amount to the appellants as an injunction order had been issued by the Sub Judge, 1st Class,  Jagadhri  in  Civil Suit No. 365/85  filed  by  Elic Alfred,  brother of the deceased employee,  restraining  the appellants from claiming or receiving any amount which  were to  the  credit  of the deceased  Railway  employee  towards C.T.D. Account, gratuity, family pension and other dues.  It appears that the relations between late Issac Alfred and his widow Smt.  Violet Issac and the children were not  cordial, as a result of which he had made nomination in favour of his brother and further he had executed a will dated 9.9.1984 in favour of Elic Alfred bequeathing all his properties to  him including  the  family  pension,  gratuity  etc.   When  the appellants  raised claim for family pension and  other  dues before the Railway Authorities, Elic Alfred filed Civil Suit No.   365/85  for  the  issue  of  a  permanent   injunction restraining  the appellants from receiving or  claiming  any monetary  benefits from the Railway Administration.  In  his suit Elic Alfred had                                                        285 pleaded  that in view of the will, his  deceased   brother’s widow    and children were not entitled to any benefit  from the  Railway  Authorities, instead he was  entitled  to  the deceased’s  estate including  the  right to  receive  family pension   and  other  dues.  The  Civil  Court   issued   an injunction   order   restraining   the    appellants    from receiving   any  amount from  the  Railway  Authorities   as a   result   of   which   the   Railway Administration   did not   pay   any   amount   to    them.    The    appellants, thereupon,  made  an   application   before   the    Central Administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  for the  issue  of  a direction  for  the  release  of  the amounts   on   account of   gratuity,   group   insurance,   provident   fund,  CTD account,  and  family  pension.   The   appellants   pleaded that   the  will relied upon by Elic Alfred  was  a   forged one   and   Elic   Alfred   was   not  entitled  to  receive pensionary  benefits.   On  an  application  made   by   the appellants  the suit pending before the  Civil   Court   was also   transferred to the Tribunal’s file. The  Tribunal  by its order  dated  11.  12.1989  held that since the  dispute related  to  rival  claims based  on  title   arising   from relationship  in one case and from a will in the  other,  it has   no   jurisdiction  to decide the  same.  The  Tribunal further   directed  for  the  transfer of the civil suit  to the  Civil  Court for trial in accordance  with   law.   The appellants have challenged the  order  of  the  Tribunal  by means  of  the present appeal.      The   dispute   between   the   parties   relates    to gratuity,    provident  fund,  family  pension   and   other allowances,  but  this  Court  while  issuing notice to  the respondents   confined   the   dispute   only   to    family pension.   We  would  therefore  deal  with   the   question of   family   pension    only.  Family  Pension  Rules  1964 provide for the sanction  of family pension to the survivors

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

of a  Railway  Employee.  Rule  801  provides  that   family pension  shall  be   granted  to   the   widow/widower   and where  there  is  no widow/widower  to  the  minor  children of   a   Railway  servant   who   may have  died  while   in service.   Under   the  Rules  son  of   the   deceased   is entitled to family pension  until  he  attains  the  age  of 25  years,  an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension  till  she   attains  the age of 25  years  or  gets married, which ever is earlier.  The  Rules  do  not provide for payment of family  pension,  to  brother  or  any  other family  member   or  relation  of  the   deceased    Railway employee.    The   Family Pension Scheme under   the   Rules is   designed   to   provide  relief   to   the   widow  and children   by   way  of  compensation   for   the   untimely death   of  the  deceased  employee.  The   Rules   do   not provide  for  any  nomination with regard to family pension, instead   the   Rules   designate   the   persons  who   are entitled to receive the  family  pension.  Thus,  no-  other person  except  those  designated  under  the   Rules    are entitled  to  receive  family pension.  The  Family  Pension Scheme  confers  monetary  benefit   on   the                                                        286 ’wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee  has no title to it.  The employee has  no  control over  the family pension as he is not required to  make  any contribution  to  it.  The Family Pension Scheme is  in  the nature   of   a  welfare  scheme  framed  by   the   Railway Administration  to  provide relief to the  widow  and  minor children of the deceased employee.  Since, the Rules do  not provide  for  nomination  of  any  person  by  the  deceased employee  during  his life time for the  payment  of  family pension,  he has no title to the same.  Therefore,  it  does not  form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of  the same by testamentary disposition.      In  Jodh Singh v. Union of India & Anr., [ 1980] 4  SCC 306  this Court on an elaborate discussion held that  family pension  is admissible on account of the status of  a  widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow.   The Court observed:           "Where a certain benefit is admissible on  account           of  status  and a status that is acquired  on  the           happening of certain event, namely, on becoming  a           widow on the death of the husband, such pension by           no stretch of imagination could ever form part  of           the  estate of the deceased.  If it did  not  form           part of the estate of the deceased it could  never           be the subject matter of testamentary disposition. The Court further held that what was not payable during  the life  time  of the deceased over which he had  no  power  of disposition  could not form part of his estate.   Since  the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment  of  family  pension,  monetary  benefit  of  family pension  cannot  form  part of the estate  of  the  deceased entitling  him  to  dispose  of  the  same  by  testamentary disposition.      We,  accordingly hold that Mrs. Violet Issac the  widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive  the family  pension, notwithstanding, the will alleged  to  have been  executed by the deceased on 9.9.1984 in favour of  his brother  Elic Alfred.  As regards appellant Nos. 2 to 6  are concerned,  it  has  been stated on behalf  of  the  Railway Administration  that they are not minors,  therefore,  under the Rules they are not entitled to any family pension.   We, accordingly  allow  the appeal, set aside the order  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

Tribunal and direct the respondent Railway Adminstration  to sanction family pension in accordance with the Rules to  the appellant  No. 1 and to pay the arrears within  two  months. The respondent’s suit, so far as it relates to the                                                        287 family  pension  cannot proceed but we do  not  express  any opinion, with regard to other claims raised therein.      It  has  been brought to our notice on  behalf  of  the respondent  Railway Administration that the appellants  have been  occupying the Railway quarter which had been  allotted to  late Issac Alfred, even though they are not entitled  to occupy the same.  On behalf of the appellants, it was  urged that  since they had not been paid any dues by  the  Railway Administration  they  were not in a position to  vacate  the premises.  The Railway Administration is free to evict  them in  accordance with the Rules, only after arrears of  family pension   are   paid  to Mrs. Violet  Issac.   The   Railway Administration   will  charge  rent  from the appellants  at the  rate  on  which the quarter had been  let  out  to  the deceased  Railway  employee. There will be no  order  as  to costs. V.P.R.                                       Appeal allowed.                                                        288