9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to family pension for the widow of a deceased constable. 2. Challenge to the eligibility criteria for family pension. 3. Application of government resolutions on family pension schemes. 4. Validity of the eligibility criteria for family pension. 5. Interpretation of government resolutions affecting family pension entitlement. Analysis: 1. The respondent, widow of a deceased constable, sought family pension after her husband's death. Despite several representations and legal actions, her claim was initially denied based on eligibility criteria. The High Court eventually ruled in her favor, granting her family pension from the date of her husband's death. 2. The respondent challenged the eligibility criteria for family pension laid down in the 1972 government resolution, which required a minimum period of service for entitlement. The resolution was later amended in 1987, removing the minimum service requirement for families of deceased government employees. However, the 1987 resolution was found inapplicable to the respondent's case as it was restricted to employees in service as of 1986. 3. The judgment highlighted the significance of government resolutions on family pension schemes, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the specified criteria for eligibility. The court noted that the respondent's case did not meet the requirements under either the 1972 or 1987 resolutions, thereby denying her claim for family pension. 4. The court rejected the respondent's contention that the eligibility criteria in the 1972 scheme were illegal and unconstitutional, as this argument had been previously dismissed by the court. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding the established criteria for family pension entitlement, barring any challenges to the validity of the criteria in subsequent appeals. 5. The court ultimately set aside the High Court's judgment in favor of the respondent, reinstating the decision of the single judge that dismissed the writ petition. The ruling clarified that the respondent was not entitled to family pension under either the 1972 or 1987 resolutions due to the lack of minimum service requirements met by her deceased husband. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal and directing each party to bear their own costs.
|
