Shri Kant Tripathi, Member (J)
1. All these thirteen matters pertain to dual family pension, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard the counsel for the applicants and the respondents and perused the record. Before proceeding to examine the rival contentions, it seems to be just and expedient to look into the facts of each case.
 Army matters:
(i) O.A.No.82 of 2011 : The applicant, K.P.Komalavally, is the widow of late M.Balakrishnan Nair, who served the Indian Army as Sepoy. After discharge from the Army he was re-employed in the State Bank of Travancore. He was in receipt of military pension as well as Bank Pension till the date of his death. The applicant is admittedly being paid family pension by the State Bank of Travancore and there is no dispute to this extent. She had claimed military family pension in addition to Bank Family Pension which was denied by the respondents on the ground that she was not entitled to dual family pension, as her husband's Bank Pension was not covered by Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995.
(ii) O A No.86 of 2012 : The applicant, K.P. Sathidevi is the widow of late No.1219131 â Gnr. Pullur Narayanan, who had served the Indian Army from 4.2.1963 to 1st March 1978 and was in receipt of pension from the military after his discharge. After his discharge, he was reemployed in the Federal Bank Limited but died on 11.12.1997 while serving the Federal Bank. The Federal Bank has sanctioned Family Pension to the applicant, according to the regulations framed by the Federal Bank. The applicant claimed military family pension also, but her claim was rejected by the respondents on the ground that she was not entitled to military family pension in addition to Bank Family Pension, because her case was not covered by Employees Pension Scheme 1995 or Family Pension Scheme 1971. The applicant has set up the case that. Federal Bank is a private bank and the Government has no control on such banks, therefore, the applicant was entitled to military family pension also.
(iii) O.A. No.140 of 2012: The applicant, S.Prasanna Kumari, is the widow of late V.Raveendran Pillai, Ex.No.14501563, who after discharge from the Army took re-employment in the State Bank of Travancore. It is not in dispute that the applicant's husband was in receipt of military pension till the date of his death. It is also not in dispute that the applicant's husband died on 14.4.1998 while in the service of State Bank of Travancore. The respondents stopped the pension granted to the applicant's husband after his death, but, however, did not allow the applicant's claim for military family pension on the ground that she was in receipt of family pension from the State Bank of Travancore. The main contention raised on behalf of the applicant was that she was entitled to both military as well as bank Family Pension and there is no provision in the Pension Regulations for the Army which prohibits the grant of dual family pension. It appears that the military family pension had been denied by the respondents mainly on the ground that her Bank Family Pension was not governed by Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 or Family Pension Scheme, 1971.
(iv) O A No.162 of 2012: The applicant, Jessy Lopez, is the widow of late Francis Lopez, who had served the Indian Army from 2.6.1964 to 6.5.1978 and was in receipt of military pension till the date of his death, which took place on 6.11.2006. After the discharge from the Army he was re-employed in the State Bank of India and also retired from the Bank on 31.5.2005 with the benefit of pension. The applicant had already been sanctioned Bank Family Pension by the State Bank of India and is in receipt of such family pension regularly. She also claimed military family pension, but the respondents did not allow her claim mainly on the ground that she was not entitled to both military and bank Family Pension.
(v) O A No.168 of 2012: The applicant, P.M. Parvathi, is the widow of Ex.Signalman, late P.V.Raghavan, No.6312586, who was discharged from the Army on 31.10.1980 and was in receipt of military pension till the date of his death, which took place on 5.12.2010. The said Raghavan had joined the State Bank of India after discharge from the Army and also retired therefrom on 31st October, 2004 with pension benefit. After the death of late P.V.Raghavan, the applicant has been sanctioned and is being paid family pension for the service of her husband in the State Bank of India. Her claim for military family pension was denied by the respondents on the ground that she was not entitled draw both military and bank Family Pension under the Rules in force.
(vi) T.A.No.158 of 2010: The applicant, V.Thankamma is the widow of late Gnr.K.Narayanan, No.1222937, who was discharged on 1st May 1978 after the successful completion of 15 years of service in the Army. After the discharge from the Army, the applicant's husband was re-employed as a Bank Guard in the State Bank of India and served as such till the date of superannuation and was accordingly sanctioned civil pension of the post of Bank Guard which he received till the date of his death, which took place on 5.7.2000. The applicant's husband was also receiving military pension from 1st May 1978 till the date of his death. The applicant has been sanctioned family pension from the State Bank of India under the scheme framed by the said Bank. She had claimed military family pension also in addition to the State Bank Family Pension, but the respondents denied the military family pension on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to dual family pension according to the rules applicable to the case. In this connection, the applicant has set up the case that Pension Regulations for the Army 1961, Regulation 219, nowhere prohibits grant of dual family pension, particularly with regard to civil pension for Bank service. The applicant initially filed Writ Petition No.35024 of 2009 in the Kerala High Court, which has been received by transfer under section 34. of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 in this Tribunal and has been registered as T.A.No.158/2010.
Air Force matters:
(vii) O A No.75 of 2010: The applicant, Yasoda, is the widow of Ex.JWO, Sathiabalan, No.256479. The said Sathiabalan was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 21.2.1963 and was discharged therefrom on 29.2.1984, after 21 years and 9 days of service, and was in receipt of military pension till the date of his death, which took place on 2.9.2001. After the discharge from the Air Force, the applicant's husband had joined the State Bank of India and died while in the service of the Bank. The applicant has already been sanctioned Bank Family Pension by the State Bank of India and is receiving regularly such family pension. She also claimed military family pension, but the respondents did not allow her claim mainly on the ground that she was not entitled to receive the military family pension in addition to the military Family Pension.
(viii) O.A.No.43 of 2012: The applicant, Ex.Corporal P.Balakrishnan, has filed this Original Application for a direction to the respondents to endorse the name of his wife in the P.P.O. for enabling her to receive family pension. The applicant has served the Indian Air Force from 19.1.1967 to 1.2.1982 and was discharged therefrom with all terminal benefits including monthly pension. After the discharge, the applicant was re-employed in the State Bank of India and retired therefrom with pension. It is stated that at the time of discharge from the Air Force, the name of applicant's wife was not endorsed in the Pension Payment Order for receiving family pension. The request for endorsement of his spouse name for family pension made subsequently was rejected by the respondents stating that since the applicant has been re-employed, the applicant's wife was not entitled to family pension from the Defence along with family pension from State Bank of India and that the claim could be processed only if he produces a certificate from the re-employer stating that âNo family pension has been/will be sanctioned from the organisation in futureâ. Hence he has filed this O.A. mainly for a declaration that the applicant's wife is entitled to family pension from Indian Air Force in addition to the family pension from SBI, when she becomes entitled to it.
(ix) O A No.111 of 2012: The applicant, Vasanthiamma.S, is the widow of late K.Raman Menon, No.243031, who had served the Indian Air Force. After his discharge from the Air Force, the applicant's husband was re-employed in the State Bank of Travancore. The applicant's husband was drawing military pension till his death, which occurred on 9.12.2004. Thereafter, applicant is admittedly being paid family pension from the State Bank of Travancore. Though she had approached the respondents for grant of military family pension, but was misled by the intimation from the department that she was not entitled to dual family pension and was compelled to choose the bank pension only. The applicant has set up the case that only from the order of this Tribunal in T.A.No.16 of 2010, she came to know that drawing family pension from the Bank would not disentitle her to draw military family pension. The applicant has further pleaded that the family pension from the Bank was not paid out of any Government Fund, therefore, denial of military family pension was without any basis or bona fides. She, therefore, filed the instant O.A. for grant of military family pension in addition to Bank Family Pension, which has been denied by the respondents on the ground that she was not entitled to dual family pension, as Bank family Pension was not covered by Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995.
(x) O A No.139 of 2012: The applicant, Janet Tennyson, is the widow of late Tennyson John, No. 282508 B, who had served the Indian Air force from 09.11.1965 to 30.09.1982 and was discharged therefrom with all pensionary benefits. After the discharge, the applicant's husband was re-employed in the State Bank of Travancore in the year 1983. He died on 4.11.2001 while in the service of the State Bank of Travancore. The applicant is admittedly being paid family pension by the State Bank of Travancore and there is no dispute to this extent. She claimed military family pension in addition to Bank Family Pension, which has been denied by the respondents on the ground that she was not entitled to dual family pension, as Bank family Pension was not covered by Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The applicant has set up the case that the family pension from the Bank is paid from a separate Fund set up by the Bank for the purpose of pension as a welfare measure and it is contributory in nature as lumpsum amounts are collected from employees as well. The applicant further submitted that the family pension from the Bank was not paid out of any Government Fund, therefore denial of military family pension was without any basis.
(xi) O A No.109 of 2010: The applicant, Padmavathy, is the widow of late Sergeant Krishnan.C.R., No.221593. The applicant's late husband had joined the Air Force on 1.12.1961 and was discharged on 31.12.1976 with a reserve liability from 1.1.1977 for six years. The applicant's husband was in receipt of military pension till the date of his death, which took place on 30.5.1996. After discharge from the Air Force, the applicant's husband joined the Andhra Bank on 17.4.1985 and served there till death. It is stated that applicant was informed that she could get only one family pension as per rules and she being a poor widow was not in a position to take up the matter with Air Force authorities, therefore, she opted for Bank family pension. She has been sanctioned family pension from the Andhra Bank and is in receipt of the same. However, when she came to know that, in similar circumstances, this Tribunal has granted the relief, she approached the respondents for military family pension, but her claim was rejected by the respondents, on the ground that she was not entitled to receive dual family pension.
(xii) O A No.84 of 2011: The applicant, Usha B.Nair, is the widow of No.215257 JWO M. Balakrishnan Nair. The applicant's husband had joined the Air Force on 6.6.1956 and was discharged therefrom on 30.6.1983. After the discharge from the Air Force, the applicant's husband was re-employed in the Bank of Baroda and he died on 27.7.1999 while in the service of the said Bank. He was receiving military pension till the date of death. The applicant was sanctioned family pension from the Bank for the service of her late husband. The representation moved by the applicant for military family pension was rejected by the respondents stating that she had opted for family pension under the Bank of Baroda (Employees) Pension Scheme, 1995, therefore, she was not entitled to military pension.
(xiii) OA No.126 of 2012: The applicant, Mary Poulose, is the widow of Ex.Corporal M.J.Poulose, No. 239489, who was discharged from Indian Air Force on 31.12.1976, after more than 15 years of service with all pensionary benefits, which he received till the date of his death. After the discharge from the Indian Air Force, the applicant's husband was re-employed in the Indian Oversees Bank. It is stated that applicant was not aware of the Pension Regulations of the Air Force and as such she requested for a no-objection certificate from the respondents to receive family pension from the Bank and on the basis of NOC from the respondents, she was sanctioned family pension from the Bank after her husband's demise. It is further stated that recently the applicant came to know that there was no provision in the Pension Regulations for the Air Force which disentitles a widow to receive family pension from the Air Force in addition to family pension from the reemployer of her husband. The applicant moved a representation before the respondents for sanction of military family pension which was rejected that stating that family pensioners who are in receipt of family pension from re-employer of their husband are further considered for dual family pension, provided the family pension provided by the re-employer was either under the Family Pension Scheme 1971 or under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and since the family pension sanctioned by the re-employer was not under the above mentioned schemes, her claim for dual family pension could not be considered. Hence, the applicant has preferred this O.A.
3. The main defence set up by the respondents in all the above cases is that, applicants were not entitled to dual family pension, one from the military and the other from the aforesaid Banks on account of the fact that the family pension being paid to each of the applicants by the re-employer was not governed by the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. More so, the Banks are being functioning under the control of the Central Government, therefore, rule 54 (13-B) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the CCS (Pension) Rules, was attracted in such matters.
4. Heard Mr. V.K. Sathyanathan, Mr. T.R. Jagadeesh, Mr. M.V. Thamban, Mr.K.K.Muhammed Ravuf, Mr.Ramesh.C.R. Smt.Manju G.R., and Smt.Neema.T.V., for the applicants, Senior Panel Counsel Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy and Sri.K.M.Jamaludeen, Central Government Counsel Sri.P.J.Philip, Sri.Tojan.J.Vathikulam, and Smt.E.V.Moly, for the respondents.
5. The counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that neither Regulation 219 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, Part 1, 1961 nor Regulation 195 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, which is the relevant regulation applicable in the present matters, in no way prohibits the grant of dual family pension, one from the military and the other from a Bank, whether private or nationalised. The said regulations prohibit grant of military family pension only in a case where the applicant is in receipt of the family pension from a Government, (the Central Government or a State Government). The counsel for the applicants further submitted that the re-employers like the State Bank of India, State Bank of Travancore, Bank of Baroda, Indian Oversees Bank, Andhra Bank and Federal Bank etc. could not be categorised as Government, therefore, the family pension paid by such Banks could not be regarded as a Government family pension to deny the applicants' legitimate claim for the military family pension. Therefore, rejection of the claim of the applicants for the military family pension has resulted in grave injustice to them.
6. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, referred to the provisions of Rule 54, sub-rules (13-A) and (13-B) of the CCS (Pension) Rules and vehemently argued that sub-rule (13-A) of the said Rule 54 clearly prohibits grant of two family pensions, one for the military service and the other for the civil service/civil post. Counsel for the respondents next submitted that the said sub-rule (13-B) further provides that if any person is in receipt of the family pension not only from a Government, but also from a Public Sector Undertaking, Autonomous Body or Local Fund which is under the Central Government or a State Government, he will not be entitled to military family pension additionally. However, according to the counsel for the respondents, a departure can be made to this general rule in respect of a case covered by the second proviso to the said sub-rule (13-B), which provides that a person in receipt of family pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 or Family Pension Scheme, 1971, is eligible for the military family pension also, therefore, the claims of the applicants falling under this category alone could be considered.
7. In reply, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the aforesaid Rule 54 (13-B) does not deal with the cases pertaining to military family pension. The said sub-rule prohibits grant of dual family pension only with regard to civil services and posts governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules and not to those who are governed by the Pension Regulations applicable to defence personnel. The crux of the submissions on behalf of the applicants was that the sub-rules (13-A) and (13-B) are attracted only in a case where a question regarding family pension for the military service on one hand and the civil family pension for a civil service or a civil post covered by the CCS (Pension) Rules, on the other, arises. The said sub-rules do not apply to a case when the question of family pension arises for two services rendered by the military pensioner, firstly, the military service and secondly, with regard to the service in a bank.
8. Smt.E.V.Moly, Central Government Counsel, submitted that the State Bank of India has been established by the State Bank of India Act 1955 as a bank under the control of the Central Government, therefore, sub-rule(13-B) of Rule 54 the CCS (Pension) Rules is attracted in respect of the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries. A similar argument was advanced with regard to Nationalised Banks. It was argued that Nationalised Banks were brought under the control of the Central Government by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.
9. We have given our anxious thought to the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the record and the relevant provisions.
10. The learned counsel appearing for all the applicants seem to have made mainly two submissions, firstly, neither Regulation 219 of the Pension Regulations for the Army nor Regulation 195 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, prohibits grant of dual family pension, one from the Military and the other from Banks, to the widow, secondly, Rule 54(13A) and Rule 54(13-B) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, are not attracted with regard to military pension vis-a-vis. Bank family pension. The submission on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand was that Rule 54 (13-A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules deals with the civil as well as military pension both, which clearly provides that the widow would be entitled to only one family pension, which is more beneficial to her, therefore, Rule 54 (13-B) would also be attracted in the matter specially when rule 54(13-B) begins with the words âFamily pension admissible under this ruleâ. The term âunder this ruleâ very much includes sub-rule (13-A) of rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
11. In order to appreciate the above submissions, it is just and expedient to refer to the provisions of sub-rule (13-A) and (13-B) of Rule 54 of the C.C.S.(Pension) Rules, which are reproduced as follows:
â(13-A). A military pensioner, who on retirement from military service, on retiring pension, service pension or invalid pension is governed for the grant of ordinary family pension by Army Instruction 2/S/64 or corresponding Navy or Air Force Instructions and is re-employed in a civil service or civil post before attaining the age of superannuation, shall for the purpose of eligibility for the family pension admissible under this rule or the family pension already authorized under the aforesaid Army/Navy/Air Force Instruction, be governed as follows:
(i) If he dies while holding a civil post, his family shall be allowed family pension under these rules or the family pension authorized at the time of retirement or discharge from the military service, whichever is more advantageous to he family;
(ii)if he has, on appointment to a civil service or post, opted to retain military pension for the past military service â
(a) and retires from the civil re-employment without earning any pension therefore, his family shall be entitled to family pension as authorised at the time of his retirement/discharge from military service;
(b) retires from civil re-employment after becoming eligible for pension therefore, he shall exercise an option at the time of applying for pension for civil service either to be governed by family pension under these rules or to avail of family pension benefits as authorised at the time of his retirement/discharge from military service and the said option once exercised shall be final.
(iii) if on appointment to a civil service or post, he has opted to surrender military pension and count the military service for civil pension, his family shall be entitled to family pension under these rules.
(13-B) Family Pension admissible under this rule shall not be granted to a person who is already in receipt of Family Pension or is eligible therefor under any other rules of the Central Government or a State Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Local Fund under the Central or a State Government:
Provided that a person who is otherwise eligible for family pension under this rule may opt to receive family pension under this rule if he forgoes family pension admissible from any other source:
Provided further that family pension admissible under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall, however, be allowed in addition to the family pension admissible under these rulesâ
12. It is also significant to mention that the aforesaid sub-rule (13-A) deals with the family pension matters not only with regard to civil services and post relating to the affairs of the Union but also deal with the matters pertaining to military family pension, which very clearly prohibits dual family pension, one for the military service and the other for a civil service or a civil post. Therefore, according to the said sub-rule (13-A), the widow or other relatives of the deceased pensioner are entitled to only one of the said two family pensions, which is more advantageous to the family. Apparently, the family pension provided by the banks is not covered by sub-rule (13-A).
13. In view of the fact that the aforesaid sub-rule (13-A) regulates military family pension also to the aforesaid extent, the sub-rule (13-B) would also be applicable with regard to the family pension regarding the military service of the pensioners to the extent provided in sub-rule (13-B) and not otherwise. The said sub-rule (13-B) prohibits grant of family pension admissible under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which includes even the military family pension, to a person, who is in receipt of a family pension or is eligible therefor under the rules of the Central Government or a State Government and/or Public Sector Undertaking/ Autonomous Body / Local Fund under the Central or a State Government. In other words, the aforesaid sub-rule (13-B) is somehow synonymous to Regulation 219 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, (Part 1), 1961 and Regulation 195 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, which also prohibits grant of military family pension to a person who is in receipt of a government pension. But, the sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 is much wider, which includes not only a government family pension but also the family pension from a Public Sector Undertakings / Autonomous Body / Local Fund functioning under the Central Government or a State Government. The first proviso to the said sub-rule (13-B) further speaks of only one family pension subject, of course, to a right of election to opt for any one of the admissible family pensions. In our view, the application of the first proviso would arise only in a case where the main provisions of sub-rule (13-B) is attracted and in that event only one family pension is payable. The question of such option does not arise in a case not covered by the main provision of sub-rule (13-B). The second proviso to the sub-rule (13-B) seems to be an exception to the main provision of the said sub-rule and as such it permits the dual family pension, one from a Government, or aforesaid type of Public Sector Undertakings, Local Funds and Autonomous Bodies and the other according to any of the Sch emes, i.e. Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971.
14. In the present matter, neither the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 nor the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 is applicable, therefore, the second proviso to sub-rule (13-B) is not attracted because those two schemes having been made under the provisions of Section 6A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 which is applicable to the employees of factories and other establishments to which the said Act of 1952 applies or is applied under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 1 or Section 4 of the said Act and to none others. In the instant case, it is nobody's case that the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act was either applicable or had been applied to the posts held by the husband of the applicants under the respective Banks after re-employment.
15. In our view, the question of the application of the said sub-rule (13-B) would not arise merely because the re-employment was taken in a Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Local Fund, but it is also required to be shown that such Undertaking/Body/Fund is under the Central Government or a State Government. The objects behind the aforesaid Rule 54(13-A) and (13-B) as also Regulation 219 or 195 seem to prohibit a person from claiming dual government family pension from a common Fund/source, viz., from a Government or a Government controlled Undertaking/Body/Fund. To put it otherwise, if the source or the fund for the family pension paid by such an Undertaking/Body/Fund, is not under the control of a Government, (the Central Government or a State Government), the dual family pension cannot be denied. Therefore, in all these cases, a question has arisen as to whether or not the Fund provided for the family pension by the aforesaid Banks are under the Central Government or a State Government. Admittedly, the Federal Bank is a private bank and is not either under the Central Government or a State Government. There cannot be any dispute that the State Bank of India is governed by the State Bank of India Act, 1955, by which the former Imperial Bank was converted as the State Bank of India with necessary consequences provided in the Act. Chapter V of the Act deals with the management of the State Bank of India. Section 17 of the Act provides that the management of the Bank vests in the Central Board, which has to discharge its function on business principles regard being had to public interest. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Central Government has powers to give direction in the matter of policy involving public interest, which is to be issued in consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India and the Chairman of the State Bank of India. Except the direction with regard to the policy involving public interest, the affairs of the State Bank is not dealt with by the Central Government, rather entire affairs are dealt with by the Central Board and the Local Board of the State Bank. Merely because the Central Government has the power to issue a direction in the matters of policy involving public interest, it cannot be inferred that the State Bank of India manages the finances/Fund for the family pension or discharges its other important functions under the control of the Central Government. Section 43 of the Act provides for appointment of officers and employees of the Bank and determination of terms and conditions of their appointment and service. This power vests in the State Bank of India, and the Central Government has no role in these matters. Similarly, the State Bank of Travancore, which is a subsidiary bank of the State Bank of India, is also managed almost in the same manner as the State Bank of India. The State Bank of Travancore is governed by the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. Similarly the Indian Oversees Bank, Bank of Baroda and Andhra Bank were brought into existence in the present form by Central Acts. It was not disputed before us that all the nationalised banks are also managed, controlled and dealt with by their own Board of Management/Governing Body and the Central Government has no role to play in the affairs of such banks except to give guidelines or directions with regard to policy matters involving public interest in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, such banks are different entities as corporate bodies, consequently, it can be easily inferred that none of the aforesaid banks, namely, the State Bank of India, the State Bank of Travancore, the Andhra Bank, Bank of Baroda, Indian Oversees Bank is under the absolute control of the Central Government or a State Government within the meaning of sub-rule (13-B) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules nor the Fund etc. provided by the banks for family pension is in any way under the control of the said Government. Such banks have their respective family pension schemes regulated by the rules/regulations framed by them and therefore, the Government has no material role in such matters. And as such, the sub-rule (13-B) is not attracted to deal with the family pension matters pertaining to such banks.
16. It is also relevant to mention that this Bench in T.A. No.16 of 2010, Sobhana Kumari vs. Union of India and others, decided on 20.5.2010, which related to the dual family pension, one for the military service and the other for the Canara Bank service, which is also a nationalised bank, very clearly held that the widow of the deceased military pensioner was entitled to military family pension in addition to the bank family pension. The said view is squarely applicable in the present matter also.
17. It is also significant to mention that the military pensioner is allowed to draw both military as well as civil pension until his death and there is no dispute to this extent. But surprisingly, the widow and other relatives of the military pensioner are not allowed to draw both the military and the civil family pension from the Government simultaneously. There does not appear to be any rationale behind this scheme. The pension as also the family pension is granted in lieu of the services rendered by the pensioner during the service period and is not in any way a bounty or a charity depending upon the sweet will of the employer, rather, a legal right of the pensioner and the family pensioner. In this view of the matter, in our view, the family pensioners need to be kept at par with the military pensioner in this regard. However, it is a matter for the consideration of respondent No.1, Union of India, and as such, we do not consider it proper to issue any direction in this regard.
18. In view of the aforesaid, all the above applications are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the applicants in O.A.No.82 of 2011, O.A.No.86 of 2012, O.A.No.140 of 2012, O.A.No.162 of 2012, O.A.No.168 of 2012, T.A.No.158 of 2010, O.A.No. 75 of 2010, O.A.No.111 of 2012, O.A.No.139 of 2012, O.A.No.109 of 2010, O.A.No.84 of 2011 and O.A.No.126 of 2012, the military family pension with effect from the date of death of their husband in addition to the civil family pension in accordance with the observations made hereinbefore. The amount of the arrears shall be paid to the said applicants within four months from today. In case, the arrears are not so paid, the unpaid amount will carry simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum to be computed from the date falling immediately after expiry of the said period of four months, which shall be paid by the respondents to the concerned applicant. If certain formalities are required to be done or any application/option is required to be made by any applicant for the family pension, the respondents shall permit the concerned applicant to do so, without any objection.
19. In O.A.No.43 of 2012, the respondents are directed to issue a corrigendum PPO endorsing the name of the applicant's wife as the person entitled for the family pension, especially when all the formalities in regard thereto have already been done by the applicant.
20. There will be no order as to costs.
21. Issue free copy of this order to both sides.
22. Copy of this order shall also be placed on the file of all the connected cases.