Haryana: Trooper accused of killing son missing, wife wins pension right

CHANDIGARH: In an order with wide ramifications on pension-related issues, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that even if a retired employee is wanted in a criminal case but is presumed dead by a court after being untraced for seven years, his wife would be entitled to family pension. The court, however, made it clear that the benefit would not survive once the person is found or traced in future.
Justice G S Sandhawalia passed the order while allowing a plea by Ram Kala Devi of Haryana’s Rewari district who had challenged the central government’s decision on February 27, 2015, to reject her claim for family pension.
‘Petitioner not beneficiary of husband’s misconduct’
An FIR was registered against Singh Ram for murder and he was declared a proclaimed offender.
After he was untraceable for seven years, Ram Kala Devi got a decree from the civil court about presumption of her husband’s death. Despite her plea for family pension on account of her husband’s “death”, the Centre refused her claim. She was entitled to pension as her husband had retired as a BSF employee.
The Centre denied her claim for pension citing the March 3, 1989, circular that if an official disappears after committing fraud, the family pension would be sanctioned only when the employee is acquitted by the court of law.
Seeking direction for grant of family pension, Ram Kala Devi’s counsel submitted before the high court that her right to family pension could not be curtailed on account of her husband’s misconduct, as such and even otherwise, it had legally been presumed that he had died. The counsel argued that the petitioner could not be said to be a beneficiary of her husband’s misconduct in this case.
The counsel for the central government strongly opposed the petitioner’s contention on the ground that pension was not a matter of right and a government employee had to maintain good conduct after retirement as well.
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner had lost not only her son on account of the criminal offence which the husband had committed and thereafter, he had gone absconding and her right of family pension was also denied. The petitioner had filed the suit, placed sufficient evidence on record to claim that her husband was missing and had not seen the light of the day for the relevant seven years. In such circumstances, presumption of law has arisen in favour of the petitioner,” the high court held and ordered that she be paid pension.
The high court, however, made it clear that in case the petitioner's husband was traced or arrested and produced in court, the benefit, as such, of presumption, would no longer survive. The court also clarified that in case the husband of the petitioner had been paid pension till a specific date, then the family pension would accrue a month thereafter, when the payment had been received.