14 December 2012
I retired last year. I had nominated my divorced wife for family pension. Divorced had been granted in 2006 as per Hindu Act. I have not remarried. Govt have not sanctioned family pension saying no one is eligible. My contention is simple and springs out from Hindu marriage Act. As per the Act, a husband is obliged to pay alimony to divorced wife even beyond his own life, as long as wife survives, even if it is from a charge on his property. That being so, how can the Govt refuse to sanction family pension?
14 December 2012
*Barman! A divorced wife has got no legal right to retain her right to family pension so such retired employee, if wants her divorced wife's nomination from his service record then the same is entirely legal step. There is law contrary to it.
Do you feel that for your own offence or liability, the Government is responsible to pay a penalty? Another question arises, had you been compelled by the Government to take a divorse from her? Divorse was your personal need for which you are liable to bear with the liability of her maintenance as per the HMA, personally, not the Government.
Family Pension is a social welfare measure for the families of the retired employed, which the Government pays to widow of a retired employee and even to his children, after the expiry of the widow, till they become capable of maintaining themselves after the demise of the retired employee. Even the widow loses her pension when she remarries. A divorsed wife having been cut off socially with you losing her right to be your family member (wife) would not be termed as your widow after your death.
About your simple contention, individual contentions are always simple when not associated with any logic. It will not wonder me, if at some other time another simple contention would arise in your mind, as to why the Government should not maintain all of descendants (major children, grand children, great grand children), etc., also of the retired employee when he had obliged the Government by rendering his service.
14 December 2012
After reading the opinion of respected Dhingra G supported with the consent of Ld. Singh, it seems that querist should come forward and submit additional information as mentioned by Sudhir Kumar.
16 December 2012
Clarifications: I am getting my pension. State govt acting on AIS rules. No condition given by me for the only nomination to lapse. No remarriage by either of us.
Comment on Dhingra's observation: Where is the offence in divorce? Please don't imagine my unstated contentions. Your imagination is too far fetched and a personal attack. My simple contention was about "expectation of consistency between a law enacted by parliament and rules formulated by Govt." Whereas Hindu Marriage Act stipulates that a divorced wife has a right even after the death of her exhusband for an alimony, why should the govt refuse to pay family pension for the same person, even when there are no other claimants or needy persons.
16 December 2012
Alive ex-employee is provided with service pension and not family pension as the family pension is a benefit which is given to the entitled legal heirs of deceased employee so legally you are entitled for the service pension and not family pension.
16 December 2012
Surely Courts are the ultimate arbiters, when differences of perspectices persist. I am exploring the opinions of experts on the issues with broader and deeper analysis not confining oneself to what is literally stated in the rules. Let me put the issue in a different language. Surely constitutional theory experts will have a more enlightening perspective to it.
Can the STATE (India) have different stands when it comes to the right to livelihood of a divorced spouse. In one case i.e. through Hindu Marriage Act, it says that even after divorce, a spouse without enough income should be supported by the other spouse for life, irrespective of the genesis or causes of divorce.
In the second case, i.e. AIS rules, it tries to terminate the rights of divorced wife for a livelihood, by restricting the meaning of wife. Can the scope of meaning of wife be different through different rules? Can it not be remedied simply by incorporating all needy dependents into the panel of eligible persons. In any case, family pension is accorded only to one person at a time.
Govt does not incur any extra expenditure nor is it doing any social service in case of family pensions. It is nothing but the deferred payments for the lifelong services of the governement servant so long as he was fit in government's view.
16 December 2012
I am totally in disagreement with Mr.Dingra's opinion. He seems to be under the mistaken notion that alimony is a penalty given by an 'offender'. and It was the personal need of the spouse because of which he has obtained the divorce and thus is liable to pay.
As per the Act, it is the economically well off spouse who compensates the other spouse, whatever be the genesis for that divorce. This principle is what makes it equitable and accept with grace the decree of alimony. This goes much beyond the doctrine of 'eye for an eye' and is thoughtfully framed by our jurisprudence specialists.
He declares that family pension is a social welfare measure. A widow on the street is not given family pension of 1/4th salary of a civil servant. Both the civil servant and the Government are aware that pension is a deferred payment for the lifelong service rendered by the govt servant as long as the govt thought he is fit.
He further states that my expectation can extend to all decendents including greatgrand children etc. This is a stupendous extension. My mindset is that of a civil servant, which by any stretch of imagination will not expect such a thing by the State. But atleast one mindset has imagined that as a possibility. This does not hurt me in the least. But i am rejoindering it so that innocent justice/opinion seekers should realise that all these things do exist in the 'expert opinions' and perhaps of some zamindars, businessmen,or politicians.
As I differed with your opinion, you have every right to differ with my opinion.
But, about your query, "Where is the offence in divorce?" did I say anywhere that you comiitted any offence? But I must ask, why the Government should be made liable to pay family pension to a non-family member, when you have already discarded her and eliminated from your life? Another question arises, in what way the Hindu Marriage Act, from which your contentions has sprung out, is linked with the service rules and Pension Rules for the Government servant and his family? Your marriage was your personal need, not that of the Government. So, was the divorce your personal need, not the need of the Government.
About your expectation as per your statement, "expectation of consistency between a law enacted by parliament and rules formulated by Govt," I can only say that the expectations should not be too far stretched and illogical.
Divorse laws provide for the husband to be obliged to pay the alimony to his ex-wife, but not the Government on his behalf.
If your contention, as per your views, had some force, you could well have prayed the court of law to include the orders for the Government to pay the alimony on your behalf by santion of family pension, as you had been putting service to the Government. If not done earlier, you are free now to file another suit against your department to santion family pension to your divorced wife after you. In that case, you would be free to elaborately apply your expectations and logics for consideration of the judge as well as the Government to make a review of the Pension Rules. If you win, that will open the door of luck for all other divorsed Government employees, while you would be able to earn a great credit for this noble cause.
Also, you are also free to take up independently with the Ministry of Law to amend the provisions of HMA for alimony with particular reference to the Government servants.
About your latest query, if I am in a mistaken notion that it was the personal need of the spouse because of which he has obtained the divorce and thus is liable to pay," I would be obliged to you if you can prove that your divorce was the need of the Government in which you were serving.
About your other point, "pension is a deferred payment for the lifelong service rendered by the govt servant," pension can be treated as a deferred payment for your servicem but not the family pension. If you have any such order of the Government or any case law, which can prove that the family pension is also a part of deferred payment in lieu of service of the retiree, I would be quite thankful to you, as that would not only enhance my own knowledge, but also provide relief to the several needy Government servants, seeking such a useful and important order/law.
About your remarks, "this is a stupendous extension" on expectation can extend to all decendents including greatgrand children, the fact is that I saw your own expectation to be stupendous.
Your reference to AIS rules suggest that you belonged to IAS cadre. You know that IAS & Allied Cadre people often speak that they are the rule makers. So, I wonder, why you could not get the rule of nomination or definition of family changed by approaching your colleagues in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.