ہائیकोर्ट نے मृत अविवाहित पुलिसकर्मी की मां को पेंशन दिलवाने का निर्देश छह सप्ताह में

Billaspur. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agarwal in DB (Division Bench) have pronounced a significant decision in a dispute arising from non-granting pension to the mother of an unmarried deceased employee of the police department after amendments to the rules of DB. The court held that if a later law or set of rules is framed based on an earlier law, and the later law does not contain some beneficial or supportive provisions, the court is not obliged to declare the later law ultra vires. Instead, by applying the principles of reference and harmonization, the court may read beneficial provisions of the earlier law into the later law to give effect to the legislative intent and prevent injustice or arbitrariness. It is very wrong that the mother of a martyr killed in a Naxalite attack is not given pension. The court also directed the government to decide the mother’s case within six weeks. The petitioner is Philista Lakra, wife/late Lobin Lakda, resident of House No. 28, Ward No. 02, Coal Khachar, Goria, Kunhari Tehsil, Jashpur district, Chhattisgarh. Ignatius Lakda, a Constable in the 10th Battalion of the Assam Police Force, was martyred in an encounter on 11.12.2002 at the age of 21, leaving behind his father Lobin Lakda, his mother, a elder brother, and two sisters. After the father’s death on 23-08-2020, the veteran mother applied for pension, which was rejected by the police force stating that the rule amendments in 1970 added para 6 to the 1963 and 1965 rules, which stated that pension could not be given to the mother of a deceased unmarried employee of the police department. The petitioner approached the High Court. The Chief Justice and the bench stated that there is no hesitation in holding that the 1965 Act should have a provision similar to the 1963 Rules, which was amended in 1970 to provide pension benefit to the mother after the father’s death, to those who already had pension sanctioned. Denying pension to the mother of the deceased employee is very wrong, especially since the petitioner’s son laid down his life in a Naxalite attack. The petition is disposed of with the observation that the 6 proviso added via the 30.11.1970 notification will be treated as part of the 1965 Rules, and the father’s pension, after his death, will be available to the mother under the 1965 Rules. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to pension, and the government is directed to consider and decide the case within six weeks from today based on these observations.