29 October 2017
My dad was working in bsnl tool divorce lived separately but was unmarried same with my mom. My dad demised and myself and mom took care of him in his last few days we are indebted coz of his medical treatments. Is it possible for my mom to recieve family pension of my dad as am goin to turn 25 and am a male. Plz help out.
30 October 2017
Yes! a divorced wife is entitled to claim family pension from her divorced husband including her major son.if he loses both her parents during divorce proceedings. Such pension she will be eligible to draw from the date of divorce petition.Please click the following link for further information on this issue. 04:05 PM | 27 Yes! a divorced wife is entitled to claim family pension from her divorced husband including her major son.if he loses both her parents during divorce proceedings. Such pension she will be eligible to draw from the date of divorce petition.Please click the following link for further information on this issue. 04:05 PM | 27 October SECTIONSET APPSENGLISH https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rule-change-family-pension-for-women-who-lose-parents-while-divorce-case-is-on/articleshow/59905660.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Read more at: //economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/59905660.cms? utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
30 October 2017
Ms. Usha Kapoor, you have not read the news item correctly. The change of rule is for the daughter of the deceased government employee not the divorced wife. The daughter of such government employee who is either widow or divorcee or is getting divorce can be entitled for pension even if she is above 25 years of age. The wife remains wife till the marriage subsists after the dissolution of marriage she is not wife nor widow of deceased government employee and she will not be entitled for any pension relief nor a son above 25 years get pension relief.
30 October 2017
According to Madras Highcourt which also has taken support of some Supreme court decisions to arrive at a conclusion and gave a Judgment a divorced wife is entitled to family pension of her ex husband as per the following case the details of which you can find by clicking the link. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160295870/
30 October 2017
In terms of the definition of "family" as provided under Rule 54 of the CC(Pension) Rules, a judicially separated wife/husband is eligible for family pension, subject to certain restrictions. Her/his priority comes comes after the spouse. The definition is reproduced below- 54. Family Pension, 1964 .............................................................................................. ................................................................................... (14) For the purposes of this rule, - (a)"continuous service" means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment and does not include - (i) period of suspension, if any ; and (ii) period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years; 1[(b) "family" in relation to a Government servant means - (i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant. (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery. NOTE 1. - Deleted.
NOTE 2. - Deleted.
(ii) Unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally”;
(iii)dependent parents (iv) dependent disabled siblings (i.e., brother or sister) of a Government servant (c) "pay" means - ........................................................................
It is my understanding that same provisions apply to the BSNL; an internal circular suggests so -
Admissibility: Family Pension is admissible on the death of a Government Servant while in service after having put in one year‘s service, and also to those with less than one year‘s service if proper medical fitness certificate for appointment has been submitted. It is also admissible in the case of death of a pensioner, receiving any pension or compassionate allowance. Definition of ‘Family’:- ‗Family‘ in relation to a Government Servant for the purpose of Family Pension means:- i) Wife or Husband (even in cases where the marriage took place after retirement), ii) A judicially separated wife/ husband if such separation was not granted on the ground of adultery and the surviving spouse was not held guilty of adultery; iii) Sons, unmarried daughters, Widowed and divorced daughters, legally adopted son/ unmarried daughter born/ adopted before or after retirement, who have not attained 25 years of age; iv) Posthumous child and v) Parents who were wholly dependent on the Government Servants when he/she was alive provided the deceased employee had not left behind a widow /widower, eligible son or daughter or a widowed/divorced daughter, who will have a prior claim to the family Pension in the order indicated.
In view above rule position, it is my considered opinion that your mother is eligible, on the facts stated, to receive family pension. She may apply in the prescribed proforma [Form 18 under CCS(Pension) Rules]. Please verify if the same form has been adopted by BSNL as well.
30 October 2017
Judicially separated wife is not divorced but still legal wife hence she is entitled. A woman whose marriage is dissolved is no more a wife so no question of her getting any pension privileges of deceased ex-husband. Which High Court and which judgment can state a divorcee as still wife? Let that judgment be made public here. Mere hearsay comments just for giving wrong information to innocent public is not correct.
30 October 2017
With due respects to Learned Expert Mr. Vijay Raj Mahajan, in the ordinary parlance a "judicially separated wife" does not include a divorcee. However, it is my considered view that in the context of the definition as provided under CCS(Pension) Rules 54(14)(b), the term warrants a liberal interpretation to include a "divorced" spouse as well. In this context the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal vide the decision in OA 4190/2012 (Pooja Chauhan vs The Secretary) had held that "the term judicial separation would also include divorce". (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143327049/)
Probably, you may have the need to recheck your reply on pension entitlement for divorced wife. Any judgment in some individual case does not have any bearing in any case other than the judgment case in itself, unless the statutory rules and regulations on the subject are amended with reference to the case judgment. So far I know, there is no such amendment in the CCS (Pension) Rules in favour of a divorced wife.
Probably, you may also like to have a re-look on your replies. although the description of the problem is quite vague, as pointed out in my previous post, there seems to be no relevance on discussion on judicially separated wife, as the author of the problem has not stated about his mom to be a judicially separated wife. Still further, even in the case of a judicially separated wife, pension entitlement is purely conditional, not automatic
Also there seems to be the need for re-look of the provision of Rule 141(b) of CCS Pension Rules, if any exists there.
Still further, the CAT decision in OA 4190/2012, as referred by you, is not even remotely applicable to the divorced or judicially separated wife, as the case pertains to family pension to 2 daughters, not the divorced/ judicially separated wife, of the deceased employee.
31 October 2017
Mr. P. Venu did you even read the judgment https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143327049/ completely? You say the tribunal held judicial separation will include even divorced, how could you state falsely such things and misguide people here. The CAT in the Pooja Chauhan case held the two daughters borne out of union of the deceased employee and his divorced wife after divorce as they were in live in relationship entitled to get pension relief and not the divorced wife who was applicant no. 3, the CAW could not go against the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and call a divorced woman "Wife" of the deceased. Please stop your arguments which has no legal status here. Hindu Marriage Act,1955 makes it very clear after the dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce the status of both parties change as divorcee and relationship come to an end from husband and wife for each other. If the decree of divorce was not sufficient to dissolve the marriage and make parties to remarry, than what for the enactment made? After divorce both parties can remarry and have new life partner as husband or wife as the case may be. If the previous life partner, i.e. ex- husband or ex- wife as the case may be were to be given same status as that of the new husband and wife than what for the Act made, what for Family Court made, what for the long litigation for divorce continues in Indian courts? Have you ever seen the plight of the people waiting outside the Family Court waiting for their divorce proceedings? Its easy to come here and pass comments which are not at all relevant and valid.
31 October 2017
Learned Experts Mr.Dhingra/Mr. Vinay Raj Mahajan:
I am sorry that there has been an error in my last posting; The rule involved is CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 54(14) (b). I have since modified my last posting correcting the mistake; the lapse is regretted.
Last but not least, I have quite often emphasized, the dignity and integrity of this Forum requires that those of us who are privileged to be classified as experts ought to make our postings without being judgmental of the querists as well the other experts; there is strict liability cast on us, the experts. I have been trying the level best to abide by this unwritten code of conduct. It is only a natural corollary that I expect the other Learned Experts would also follow this simple rule at least not to make a wilful distraction.
31 October 2017
May be in anguish, but ridership at top position for Mr. N.J.S. Rajkumar seems to be assured at the earliest due to his playing a number game, like at least two other fake experts, by making 10 posts in continuation at a stretch at first and 2 later on. Good progress!
He may please accept my congratulations in advance.
31 October 2017
See Jiga had Rightly Come.Dear Querist A Divorced Spouse should/could receive the Survivor Rights if that is provided for as part of division of pension benefits during divorce proceedings please.
31 October 2017
An extraordinarily sweet pill by Mr. NJS Rajkumar, when he states, "the Divorced Spouse would be certainly eligible if the Pleadings were made in the Divorce Petitions and orders obtained," that too after editing his earlier version of his statement.
The querist may like to take the help of Mr. NJS Rajkumar, provided he guarantees that he would be able to get the orders of the judge to get pension for his divorced mother on the basis of his pleadings.
I can wish the best of luck for both the querist as well as Mr. NJS.
In your last post addressed to Shri Sudhir Kumar where you said, “Mr.Sudhir Kumar Just wait Jiga alias Dhingra would certainly come forward to assist/ support you.”
For your kind information, neither I am Jiga nor alias of Mr. Dhingra. Further, you should better be aware that a person knowledgeable in departmental Rules & Regulations, like Mr. Sudhir Kumar, does not have any need for the support of Mr. Jigyasu. A support is required to be extended only to some person, who is ignorant in departmental Rules & Regulations. So, I have come forward to help you to recognize what sort of ailment you are infested with, when made multiples of vague posts.
I wonder, as if your initials, “NJS” stand for "NOT JUSTIFIABLY SURE" as your post denoted your sheer presumptions on your part! The reason is quite apparent. When Mr. P. Venu realized about his unintentional error made through an oversight, which you had endorsed to be correct, but you still persisted on your own assumption even though Mr. P. Venu made the position clear about the error by quoting the correct Rule. Besides, Mr. Sudhir Kumar also gave a clarification about the definition of family. But, in spite of that clarification you still could not reconcile with your assumption and wanted me to respond.
In fact, you make so many presumptions about persons, attitudes, problems and even legal implications of your own response, even though you are a a qualified lawyer. You have assumed me to be Mr. Dhingra and that too of "Narcissistic Personality Disorders", whereas, YOUR OWN POSE at your PICTURE openly reveals, as if you are of "Narcissistic Personality Disorders." Not only that your 10 anguish filled posts in continuation clearly reveals about such disorder, as if your ego was greatly hurt, when you found that with the posts of Mr. Dhingra, you felt to have been found on wrong foot due to your own ignorance about the statutory Pension Rules, when you stated, "Very Well Explained by Expert Mr.P. Venu. Certainly it would help the Querist." DOUBTLESSLY, YOUR ASSUMPTION WAS QUITE WRONG, as already proved by the clarification by Mr. P. Venu and Mr. Sudhir Kumar.
Contrary to your anguish filled continuous 10 emotional posts, you were amply exposed when Mr. P. Venu, himself posted correction to his earlier post and your own position as expert was falsified with respect to the entitlement of pension to the querist.
In fact, your problem is that you find occasions just to make irrelevant posts as of playing merely number game without knowing or judging the knowledge of others about the relevant legal implications for the problem. You preferred to make 10 posts at a stretch in continuation as of fit of rage, but without waiting patiently about the clarification by the author of the advice, which you stated to be well advised, but without knowing the implications of the ruling position.
Since based on my own knowledge, I analyse the advice rendered by various experts, I would also have criticised the posts of Mr. Dhingra, had I found his observation to be wrong. Since I knew, as per Rules and Regulations, Mr. Dhingra pointed out very correctly about the distracting advice of some experts, I was just watching the response to his posts. But, instead of waiting for any clarification, you preferred to ridicule him instead of making a re-look of your own ignorance about the subject matter. Please excuse me, that instance smacked egoistic behavior on your part.
So now, even you can very well judge about yourself as to where do you stand, when you tried to vainly assert on your misleading statements. Apparently, all that revealed yours self importance and vanity, may be due to your own "Narcissistic Personality Disorders".
05 November 2017
Hai Jiga . Alias Dhingra Just Keep away from me as I Prefer to Ignore you as I do not wish to blast you depending on your real Conditions.Next Time if you post any thing addressing me you will not be spared.Last Warning
I also wanted to avoid you, but when you invited my response through your post addressed to Mr. Sudhir Kumar, saying "Mr.Sudhir Kumar Just wait Jiga alias Dhingra would certainly come forward to assist/support you," I was compelled by you only to clarify my position.